Bull Eng Geol Environ (2012) 71:401–434
DOI 10.1007/s10064-012-0418-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils: a review
Robert P. Chapuis
Received: 7 October 2011 / Accepted: 12 February 2012 / Published online: 29 April 2012
 Springer-Verlag 2012
Abstract This paper examines and assesses predictive
methods for the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils.
The soil definition is that of engineering. It is not that of
soil science and agriculture, which corresponds to ‘‘top
soil’’ in engineering. Most predictive methods were cali-
brated using laboratory permeability tests performed on
either disturbed or intact specimens for which the test
conditions were either measured or supposed to be known.
The quality of predictive equations depends highly on the
test quality. Without examining all the quality issues, the
paper explains the 14 most important mistakes for tests in
rigid-wall or flexible-wall permeameters. Then, it briefly
presents 45 predictive methods, and in detail, those with
some potential, such as the Kozeny-Carman equation.
Afterwards, the data of hundreds of excellent quality tests,
with none of the 14 mistakes, are used to assess the pre-
dictive methods with a potential. The relative performance
of those methods is evaluated and presented in graphs.
Three methods are found to work fairly well for non-plastic
soils, two for plastic soils without fissures, and one for
compacted plastic soils used for liners and covers. The
paper discusses the effects of temperature and intrinsic
anisotropy within the specimen, but not larger scale
anisotropy within aquifers and aquitards.
Keywords Permeability  Hydraulic conductivity 
Porosity  Test  Prediction
Résumé Cet article examine et évalue les méthodes de
prédiction de la conductivité hydraulique saturée des sols.
R. P. Chapuis (&)
Department CGM, École Polytechnique de Montréal,
Sta. CV, P.O. Box 6079, Montreal, QC H3C 3A7, Canada
e-mail: robert.chapuis@polymtl.ca
La définition du sol est celle du génie. Ce n’est pas celle de
science du sol et agriculture qui correspond au sol de
surface en génie. La plupart des méthodes prédictives ont
été calibrées avec des essais de perméabilité de laboratoire,
réalisés sur des échantillons remaniés ou intacts, pour
lesquels les conditions d’essai étaient soit mesurées soit
supposées être connues. La qualité des équations prédic-
tives dépend fortement de la qualité des essais. Sans
examiner tous les aspects de qualité, l’article explique les
14 erreurs les plus importantes pour les essais en perm-
éamètre à paroi rigide ou à paroi souple. Après, il présente
brièvement 45 méthodes prédictives, et en détail celles
avec potentiel comme l’équation de Kozeny-Carman. En-
suite, les données de centaines d’essais d’excellente qua-
lité, sans aucune des 14 erreurs, sont utilisées pour évaluer
les méthodes prédictives avec potentiel. La performance
relative de ces méthodes est évaluée et présentée en gra-
phes. On trouve que trois méthodes fonctionnent bien pour
les sols non plastiques, deux pour les sols plastiques sans
fissures, et une pour les sols plastiques compactés utilisés
en tapis et couvertures. L’article discute les effets de la
température et de l’anisotropie intrinsèque du spécimen,
mais pas de l’anisotropie à plus grande échelle dans les
aquifères et aquitards.
Mots clés Perméabilité  Conductivité hydraulique 
Porosité  Essai  Prédiction
List of symbols
A–D, a–c Coefficients in predictive equations
CK Permeability change index
CU Coefficient of uniformity, CU = d60/d10
d Grain size (mm)
dx Grain size (mm) such that x % of the solid
mass is made of grains finer than dx
123
402 R. P. Chapuis

e Void ratio (m3/m3); e = n/(1-n) characterize the field K value. Most projects do not have
eL Void ratio at the liquid limit (m3/m3) the budget to perform many field and laboratory perme-
emax, emin Maximum, minimum void ratio (m3/m3) ability tests, which are time consuming and more costly
GSDC Grain size distribution curve than predictions. This is why simple methods are used to
h Hydraulic head (m) predict either the saturated hydraulic conductivity Ksat or
Gs Specific gravity of solids, Gs = qs/qw the full function K(Sr) at any degree of saturation Sr. Pre-
ID, I e Density indexes (%) dictive methods use simple properties such as porosity,
IL Liquidity index (%) grain size distribution curve (GSDC), and consistency
IP Plasticity index (%) limits, which are routinely and economically determined
IS Shrinkage index (%) for all projects.
K Hydraulic conductivity (m/s) In soil science, predictive methods consider the soil
K Hydraulic conductivity tensor (matrix) texture, its bulk density, clay content and organic matter
Ksat Saturated hydraulic conductivity (m/s) content (e.g., Kunze et al. 1968; Gupta and Larson 1979;
n Porosity (m3/m3) Puckett et al. 1985; Haverkamp and Parlange 1986; Wosten
nc Porosity after compaction (m3/m3) and van Genuchten 1988; Vereecken et al. 1990; Jabro
nmax, nmin Maximum, minimum porosity (% or m3/m3) 1992; Rawls et al. 1993; Leij et al. 1997; Schaap et al.
ne Effective porosity (% or m3/m3) 1998, 2001; Cronican and Gribb 2004; Nakano and
p Portion of clay minerals (%) Miyazaki 2005; Costa 2006; Ghanbarian-Alavijeh et al.
PL Piezometric level (m) 2010). In this paper, the soil definition is that used for
rK Anisotropy ratio, rK = Kmax/Kmin engineering or construction materials. It is not that used in
RF Roundness factor (number) soil science and agriculture, which corresponds to ‘‘top
Sr Degree of saturation (% or m3/m3) soil’’ in engineering. Therefore, the soils examined here-
Src Degree of saturation (% or m3/m3) after after contain little or no organic matter and they have a
compaction single porosity (no fissures or secondary porosity that may
SS Specific surface (m2/kg) be due to weathering effects or biological intrusions).
Ss Specific storativity (m-1) In theory, Ksat depends on the pore sizes, and on how the
t Time (s) pores are distributed and interconnected. Although a detailed
T Temperature (degrees Celsius) description of the continuous complex void space is needed in
w Water content (% or kg/kg) theory to study seepage, this description is a scientific chal-
wL Liquid limit (% or kg/kg) lenge (e.g., Windisch and Soulié 1970; Garcia-Bengochea
wP Plastic limit (% or kg/kg) et al. 1979; McKinlay and Safiullah 1980; Garcia-Bengochea
WRC Water retention curve (h vs. u) and Lovell 1981; Delage and Lefebvre 1984; Juang and Holtz
1986; Lapierre et al. 1990; Delage et al. 1996; Horgan 1998;
Greek letters Tanaka et al. 2003; Nelson 2005; Barrande et al. 2007;
aL Longitudinal dispersivity (m) Donohue and Wensrich 2008; Matyka et al. 2008; Li and
cs, c w Specific gravity (kN/m3) of solids, of water Zhang 2009; Minagawa et al. 2009; Pisani 2011). This
lx Water dynamic viscosity (Pas) at temperature x explains why most methods predicting Ksat use the GSDC,
lw Water dynamic viscosity (Pas) which is information on the solids, instead of information on
qd Dry density (kg/m3) the pore space such as the pore size distribution curve or
qs, qw Density (kg/m3) of solids, of water PSDC. Simplified descriptions of the pore space, such as
h Volumetric water content (m3/m3) bundles of straight tubes, have been used to predict Ksat.
However, most predictive methods for Ksat use easy-to-
measure parameters such as the soil porosity n (or the void
Introduction ratio e) and the grain size distribution curve (GSDC), whereas
a measured or estimated water retention curve (WRC) cou-
Groundwater seepage conditions are key parameters for pled with the previously estimated Ksat are used by predictive
drinking water supply, management of water resources, methods for unsaturated K (e.g., Marshall 1958, 1962;
water contamination and engineered facilities for waste Millington and Quirk 1959, 1961; Green and Corey 1960;
storage. Seepage is linked directly to hydraulic conduc- Brooks and Corey 1964; Houpeurt 1974; Mualem 1976; van
tivity K through Darcy’s law (Darcy 1856). The K value of Genuchten 1980; Vogel and Roth 1988; Durner 1994; Leong
soils can be either measured or predicted. Most natural and Rahardjo 1997; Poulsen et al. 1998; Arya et al. 1999;
soils have spatially variable hydraulic properties. This Fredlund et al. 1994, 2002; Moldrup et al. 2001; Hwang and
implies that many K data are needed to adequately Powers 2003; Chapuis et al. 2007).

123
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils 403

Table 1 Sampling methods, sample quality and properties that can be measured in the laboratory
Class Sample or sampler Main Detailed Grain size Atterberg Density Water Unit Permeability Compressibility Shear
of type stratigraphy stratigraphy distribution limits index content weight strength
sample

1 Cut block samples X X X X X X X X X X

and stationary
thin-walled piston
sampler, diameter
73 mm minimum
(aquitards)
2 Other thin-walled X X X X X X X X X
tube samplers in
plastic soils
(aquitards)
3 Thin-walled tube X X X X X± X X± X
samplers in non-
plastic soils
(aquifers)
4 Thick-walled tube X X X± X X± X±
samplers, such as
the split-spoon
(aquitards or
aquifers)
5 Random samples X X± X X±
(composites)
collected in test
pits or by auger
(aquitards or
aquifers)

Most predictive methods have been calibrated using
laboratory permeability tests performed on either disturbed
or intact soil specimens, for which the test conditions
(GSDC, n and Sr values) were either measured or supposed
to be known. From a quality control point of view (e.g.,
Chapuis 1995), the complete chain of procedures must be
analyzed to assess the quality of any laboratory perme-
ability test before assessing a predictive method. Here, the
major steps to consider and analyze are:
• Selecting samples and specimens to be tested,
• Preparing homogeneous specimens for laboratory tests,
• Selecting appropriate testing methods for grain size
distribution and permeability test,
• Correctly performing the tests and,
• Correctly interpreting the test data.
This paper does not examine all the quality issues
related to laboratory permeability tests. However, it docu-
ments the frequent mistakes for tests in rigid-wall or flex-
ible-wall permeameters. This will be used subsequently to
assess the performance of predictive methods.
The paper then presents the characteristics of predictive
methods, and whether they can be viewed as reliable.
Afterwards, data from excellent quality tests, performed on
remoulded (homogenized) or intact soil specimens, which
have been fully saturated using de-aired water and either a
vacuum or back-pressure technique, and which are not
prone to internal erosion, are used to assess the better
performing predictive methods.
Laboratory tests
The Ksat data for laboratory permeability tests are exam-
ined versus the GSDC data, the void ratio e and the specific
surface SS of tested specimens. In the laboratory, all con-
ditions such as geometry, hydraulic heads and gradients,
degree of saturation, can be, but are not always, controlled.
Tests on non-plastic soils such as gravel, sand and silt are
performed using remoulded homogenized specimens that
have lost their in situ internal structure. Laboratory tests on
plastic soils, however, can be done with intact specimens,
which have kept their in situ internal structure.
The definition of intact samples and specimens is part of
sampling quality issues (ISSMFE 1981; Baldwin and
Gosling 2009). Usually, five sample classes are defined by
considering the relationships between sampling tools and
methods, quality of sample and quality of laboratory tests,
which have been the topic of many research projects that
began before 1940 (e.g., Hvorslev 1940, 1949; Mazier
1974). The preceding references were used to prepare
Table 1, which presents the sampling methods, the five

123
404
quality classes and which properties can be determined
with confidence for each class.
Top quality samples (class 1) are those in which no, or
only slight, disturbance of the in situ soil structure (no
change in water content w, void ratio e, and chemical
composition) has occurred. Obtaining class 1 samples is
only possible for plastic soils without secondary porosity: it
requires a non-destructive technique drilling method and a
thin wall piston sampler of 73 mm minimum inside
diameter (e.g., La Rochelle et al. 1981; Lefebvre and
Poulin 1979; Tanaka 2000). Only a portion of each class 1
sample provides specially cut class 1 specimens for labo-
ratory tests to determine K and different mechanical
properties.
In boreholes, obtaining high-quality (class 2) non-plastic
samples (e.g., sand and gravel) requires a non-destructive
technique drilling method and special techniques such as
slow freezing (e.g., Hvorslev 1949; Singh et al. 1982;
Konrad and Pouliot 1997; Vaid and Sivathalayan 2000).
Class 2 or 3 samples of sand and silts can be recovered with
a non-destructive technique drilling method and a thin-
walled special sampler (e.g., Bishop 1948) or a thin-walled
piston sampler (e.g., L’Écuyer et al. 1993). The hollow
stem auger, rotary, percussion, cable tool and sonic drilling
methods sometimes provide class 3, but more often class 4,
samples of silt, sand and gravel (Baldwin and Gosling
2009). These drilling methods have a strong influence on
the quality of recovered samples, and also on the quality of
installation of monitoring wells (Chapuis and Sabourin
1989).
Since the internal structure of specimens tested for
hydraulic conductivity in the laboratory may not represent
the in situ conditions, special precautions must be taken to
assess the in situ Ksat values, as discussed at the end of this
paper.
The next sections, on laboratory tests, present the most
common errors for each type of permeameter (ASTM
2011a, 2011b, 2011c), which must be explained in detail
before assessing the reliability and performance of the
numerous predictive methods for Ksat.
Rigid- and flexible-wall permeameters, common
mistakes
Mistake No.1: a cylindrical soil core is inserted directly
into a rigid-wall permeameter: to do this, the soil core
diameter must be smaller than the permeameter internal
diameter. Thus, there is some void space between the core
and the rigid wall. Therefore, some preferential leakage
occurs along the wall (Tokunaga 1988). With soil speci-
mens having some plasticity, the wall leakage rate may be
much higher than the percolation rate through the speci-
men. Mistake No.1 is easy to avoid knowing that the only
123
R. P. Chapuis
way to test correctly a soil core is using a flexible wall
permeameter, in which the lateral membrane prevents side
leakage.
Mistake No.2: a remoulded specimen is compacted in
the permeameter but some lateral leakage occurs between
the specimen and the rigid wall. Various reasons may lead
to lateral leakage or preferential leakage through the
specimen. A first reason may be the presence of particles
which are too large. According to ASTM (2011a) the inner
diameter of the permeameter must be at least 8 or 10 times
the maximum particle size of the tested specimen. This
requirement helps to avoid poor packing conditions, with
large voids along the wall, thus preferential lateral leakage.
A second reason is segregation of solids within the tested
specimen, either during compaction or seepage (internal
erosion), resulting in preferential seepage through large
pores, and also along the wall: segregation and internal
erosion are examined below in more detail (see mistake
No.8). Preferential seepage may be visualized by using
dyed water (Govindaraju et al. 1995). A non-reactive tracer
test through the specimen provides the values of effective
porosity ne and longitudinal dispersivity aL. The ne value of
a good specimen is close to its n value, whereas the ne
value of a poor specimen with preferential leakage is much
lower than its n value. Respecting criteria for the ratio of
maximum particle size to permeameter inner diameter, and
running a non-reactive test, are good methods to avoid or
detect mistake No.2.
Mistake No.3: the tested specimen is not fully saturated:
ignoring this situation leads to confusing K(Sr) with Ksat
(fully saturated). The role of Sr and its influence on K(Sr)
has been known for a long time (e.g., Hassler et al. 1936;
Wyckoff and Botset 1936; Wyllie and Gardner 1958a, b;
Bear 1972; Houpeurt 1974). The role of trapped gas during
permeability tests was studied by Christiansen (1944),
Pillsbury and Appleman (1950), Chapuis et al. (1989a),
Chapuis (2004a) and Chapuis and Aubertin (2010), among
others. Most gas bubbles in the pore space of tested spec-
imens are too small to be visible. Usually they adhere to the
solids but may become mobile. They may either grow or
shrink by diffusion depending upon temperature and
pressure variations, and whether the surrounding water is
over-saturated or under-saturated with gas. These micro
gas bubbles have a stability that depends on water velocity
(direction and amplitude); they may act as micro valves in
the pore channels and can explain the hysteresis of the
K versus Sr relationship (Chapuis et al. 1989a).
It may be thought that letting water seep upward in the
specimen minimizes gas entrapment and provides full
saturation. This is wrong: this method cannot give full
saturation. It gives a Sr value in the 80–85% range for sand,
and as low as 65% for silty sand (Chapuis et al. 1989a). In a
rigid-wall permeameter the specimen saturation may be
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils
increased up to 100% by using either an initially dry
specimen, applying first a high vacuum and then using
de-aired water (D2434, ASTM 2011a), or using an initially
wet specimen and applying a back pressure (ASTM 2011b;
Lowe and Johnson 1960; Black and Lee 1973; Camapum
de Carvalho et al. 1986).
The value of Sr may be directly verified after the test, by
weighing the tested specimen, only if it retains all its water
by capillarity. However, if the specimen does not retain all
its water, the standards do not provide a method to deter-
mine the Sr value at any time. However, there is such a
method (Chapuis et al. 1989a). Equations were provided to
relate the accuracy of this mass-and-volume method to the
uncertainties in the different measured parameters. Simple
procedures have been proposed to check that the perme-
ameter is not only watertight but also airtight (which is
crucial for saturation under vacuum), and whether the
specimen is fully saturated (Chapuis et al. 1989a). This
mass-and-volume method can provide the Sr value at any
time during a permeability test. It was used to establish that
the usual test termination criterion based on equality of
inflow and outflow volumes may be misleading (Chapuis
2004a). Without knowing the method to obtain the Sr value
at any time, the test may give some K(Sr) value for an
unknown Sr with the risk of confusing this result with
K(Sr = 100 %). Examples of sand specimens were pro-
vided where the inflow and outflow volumes were equal
within 1 % whereas Sr increased from 80 to 100 % and
K(Sr) increased by a factor of 4.
Equations for gas transfer between water and tiny gas
bubbles were also established and verified for non-plastic
soil specimens permeated with either de-aired water or
water over-saturated with air (Chapuis 2004a).
Mistake No.3, assuming that the specimen is fully sat-
urated and then confusing K(Sr) with Ksat, seems common
in documents relative to aquifer soils tested in rigid-wall
permeameters.
Mistake No.4: parasitic head losses in pipes, valves, and
porous stones, are ignored when calculating the K value.
This mistake can be avoided by using lateral manometers
or piezometers, as required by ASTM (2011a), which
measure the hydraulic head loss only within the tested
specimen. Unfortunately, not all commercial equipment
has lateral piezometers. Mistake No.4 is common when
testing aquifer soils in rigid-wall permeameters, leading to
errors up to one order of magnitude. Note that there are no
lateral manometers in flexible-wall permeameters: using
them to test sand and gravel may lead to errors in K values
of up to two or three orders of magnitude.
Mistake No.5: the K value is derived indirectly from a
time-settlement curve using consolidation theory (Terzaghi
1922a; Taylor 1948), which makes simplifying assump-
tions. Tavenas et al. (1983a) recommended abandoning
405
1.8
FP-06-03R, depth of 21.25 m
1.6
1.4
void ratio e (m3/m3)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6 Casagrande
Taylor
0.4 Direct K test
Fit (direct K)
0.2
1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07
measured or calculated K (m/s)
Fig. 1 Examples of Ksat values versus void ratio e obtained either
indirectly (consolidation curves interpreted using the methods of
Casagrande and Taylor) or directly (falling-head tests between two
consolidation steps) for a Champlain Sea clay specimen
these indirect methods because they give poor estimates of
the K value. A set of such poor estimates of the K values
appears in Fig. 1 for a Champlain Sea clay specimen
(authors’ files). Further developments in testing techniques,
better understanding of phenomena and improved accuracy
(e.g., Tavenas et al. 1983a; Daniel et al. 1984; Daniel 1994;
Haug et al. 1994; Hossain 1995; Delage et al. 2000) as well
as duration considerations for clays such as bentonite (e.g.,
Chapuis 1990a) have helped to obtain better K values that
are equal (or almost equal) to those obtained using flexible-
wall permeameters (triaxial cells) with a high backpressure
and enough time to ensure full saturation and complete
consolidation or swelling of the specimen, especially for
soil-bentonite mixes (Chapuis 1990a). With œdometer
cells, correct K values are obtained when a variable head
test is done after completion of a consolidation step, and
when the specimen height is kept constant to avoid inter-
ferences between consolidation and seepage (Tavenas et al.
1983a). The difference in hydraulic head for the variable-
head test must be small to avoid seepage-induced consol-
idation (Pane et al. 1983).
For this variable head test, the piezometric level (PL)
inside the soil specimen is usually assumed to be equal to
that of the water bowl, which is not true if the excess pore
pressure within the previously loaded specimen is not fully
dissipated. As a result, the graph of the logarithm of the
applied difference in total head, ln(Dh), versus time t is not
straight but curved. In all cases, however, the velocity
graph method provides the true PL for the test (whether the
excess pore pressure within the specimen is fully dissipated
or not) and straighten the data graph (e.g., Chapuis et al.
1981; Chapuis 1998a, 1999, 2001, 2007, 2010; Chapuis
123
406
and Chenaf 2002, 2003). When monitoring systems pro-
vide huge amounts of data for water levels versus time,
special analysis techniques can be used (Chapuis 2009).
Direct permeability tests are needed to get the correct
variation of K with void ratio e and effective stresses, but
this lengthens the total test duration, as compared to simply
using the simplified and inexact consolidation theory for
the settlement curve (indirect tests). A modified œdometer
cell and procedure may be used (Morin 1991) to shorten
the total test duration. In addition, the constant rate of
strain test and the controlled gradient test are known to
provide poor results as compared to direct falling head tests
in rigid- and flexible-wall permeameters (Tavenas et al.
1983a). Mistake No.5 is still common although it has been
known for a long time, and it is easy to avoid.
Mistake No.6: The K value is obtained after a compac-
tion which is too intense. In the rigid-wall permeameter
standard for sand and gravel (ASTM 2011a) the compac-
tion procedure is not that of the Proctor tests, which can
break or damage grains, and thus create some mobile fines.
The sliding compaction tampers have weights of 4.5 and
9 kg in the Proctor tests but only 100 g to 1 kg in per-
meability tests (ASTM 2011a). Heavy compaction can
break solid angles, thus creating fine particles that can
migrate (internal erosion is discussed in detail as mistake
No.8) due to vibration or seepage (Chapuis et al. 1996; Cyr
and Chiasson 1999). Modification of the GSDC by com-
paction is frequent with crushed stone and mine tailings.
Mistake No.6 is easy to avoid.
Mistake No.7: certain requirements of ASTM or other
standards are not respected. At least 40 or 50 items must be
respected, for equipment pieces and procedures. For
example, in D2434, saturation is done with upward seepage
of de-aired water after applying a vacuum, but the per-
meability test involves downward seepage; oversize parti-
cles must be removed; there are rules to select the size of
the permeameter, etc. In addition, it should be remembered
that standards represent an attempt to reflect the best recent
knowledge but with some time lag. Mistake No.7 can be
made with rigid- and flexible-wall permeameters.
Mistake No.8: the specimen is prone to internal erosion,
which means migration of fine particles in the pore space
between coarser particles: ‘‘suffossion’’ is the correct word as
explained in Chapuis et al. (1992). The GSDC can be used to
evaluate a priori the risk of particle migration (see criteria in
‘‘Grain size distribution curve’’). Internal erosion may occur
with man-made soil mixes used for embankment or zoned
dams (Chapuis and Tournier 2006), and soil-bentonite mix-
tures used for liners and covers (Chapuis 1990a, b, 2002;
Sällfors and Öberg-Högsta 2002; Kaoser et al. 2006). Internal
erosion may be confirmed, and its amplitude may be assessed,
after the permeability test, by performing grain size analyses
on the lower, central and upper thirds of the tested specimen.
123
R. P. Chapuis
This technique was used to study internal erosion in soil-
bentonite mixtures (Chapuis 1990a, 2002; Chapuis et al.
1992) and internal erosion in crushed stone (Chapuis et al.
1996; Cyr and Chiasson 1999), but it is not used in all testing
programs (e.g., Randolph et al. 1996). Mistake No.8 is easy to
avoid. It can be made with both rigid- and flexible-wall
permeameters.
Mistake No.9: measuring only one of the flow rates
(inflow or outflow). This may lead to a serious error on the
K value, especially with fine-grained soils in which several
phenomena such as saturation, consolidation, swelling,
creep and permeability occur all together. Mistake No.9 is
easy to avoid. It can be made with both rigid- and flexible-
wall permeameters.
Mistake No.10: according too much confidence to
equality of inflow and outflow rates and using this equality
as a termination criterion for the test. For example, Chapuis
(2004a) presented the case of sand and silt specimens
tested in rigid-wall permeameters. During the tests, the
difference between inflow and outflow rates never excee-
ded 1 %: this could have been used as a ‘‘proof’’ that
equilibrium and steady-state was achieved, and that the
permeability test could be stopped, since, for example,
standard D5856 (ASTM 2011b) requires an equality
within ±5 % or better. However, such a proof is erroneous.
The measured initial Sr values were in the 80–85 % range
for sand, and as low as 70 % for silty sand, using an
accurate technique of mass and volume measurements
(Chapuis et al. 1989a). Thus, the measured K value was not
that of Ksat. Slow circulation of de-aired water through the
specimens steadily increased the Sr value by slow disso-
lution of micro (invisible) bubbles adhering to solids.
However, the pore volume had to be replaced 60–100 times
before reaching Sr = 100 % (which took several days or
weeks) and then measuring a Ksat value that could be 5
times higher than the initial K value. During all the slow
gas removal by dissolution, the inflow and outflow volumes
were equal to within about 0.2 %, and the K value was
steady for four consecutive measurements every 60 min:
however, this was neither a proof that the test was com-
pleted nor a proof that the specimen was fully saturated.
Full saturation can take a very long time in rigid- and
flexible-wall permeameters.
Mistake No.10 seems frequent when the technique of
controlled rate of flow is used. It can mislead the user in
concluding that the test is steady and can be stopped after a
short time, especially since the standard (ASTM 2011b)
requires checking only if the ratio of inflow to outflow rates is
between 0.75 and 1.25 for this type of test. Some consider that
the controlled rate of flow test (or flow pump technique test)
should be preferred because it takes much less time to per-
form than variable-head or constant-head tests (e.g., Bolton
2000; Berilgen et al. 2006; Malinowska et al. 2011). This
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils
preference results from an illusion, scientifically unjustified.
It has been argued that the advantage can be proven using the
ground water conservation equation written with the specific
storativity Ss. However, the equation with Ss is a simplified
equation, valid only for aquifer materials (short duration
tests), and resulting from several simplifying assumptions
(full saturation, linear elasticity, immediate strains, etc.). In
the case of low-permeability soils (aquitards, long-duration
tests), which must be proven to be saturated, the basic and
complete equation of Richards (1931) should be used because
the simplified equation with Ss is unrealistic and cannot pre-
dict the end of a test. In Richards’ equation, the seepage
phenomena and solid mechanics phenomena are linked
through the h (volumetric water content) term, to account, for
example, for partial saturation, time delayed strains, etc.,
which greatly complicates the mathematical problem. How-
ever, since constant head, variable head, and controlled rate
of flow tests are governed by the same complex conservation
equation, and differ only by boundary conditions, they need
similar durations to eliminate all phenomena that affect the
seepage process (change in saturation, stress-induced con-
solidation, seepage-induced consolidation, creep, etc.).
When comparing the predictive methods, it will appear
that using the flow pump technique leads to inaccurate data
and thus leads to inaccurate predictive methods for K (see
‘‘Comparing the performances’’ in ‘‘Predicting methods for
plastic soils’’). It may also lead to an incorrect correlation
between K and the hydraulic gradient, if the time-depen-
dent seepage-induced consolidation (and thus, change in
porosity) is not taken into account.
Mistake No.10 can be avoided by verifying strict
equality of inflow and outflow rates without drawing
unjustified conclusions from it, and also using other checks
(control of Sr by the mass-and-volume method of Chapuis
et al. 1989a) and criteria when performing long duration
tests. Mistake No.10 can be made with both rigid- and
flexible-wall permeameters.
Mistake No.11: not taking into account possible scale
effects for natural clays. The clay specimens tested in
œdometers test a vertical flow path of about 2.0 or 2.5 cm,
whereas the specimens tested in triaxial cells test a vertical
flow path of 15–30 cm. Scale effects do exist for natural
clay without fissures but are usually small, whereas they
may be high for compacted clays (Benson and Boutwell
2000; Chapuis 2002; Chapuis et al. 2006). For duplicating
field K values of recent Champlain Sea clays and much
older clays, it is recommended to use either triaxial tests
with specimens at least 7 cm in diameter and 10 cm in
height, or field tests in monitoring wells (Cazaux and
Didier 2002; Benabdallah and Chapuis 2007).
Mistake No.12: parasitic head losses in pipes, valves and
porous stones are not considered in flexible-wall perme-
ameters (triaxial cells), which usually are not equipped
407
with lateral manometers. These head losses may be
important, thus yielding an incorrect K value, especially for
aquifer soils. Triaxial cells are designed for impervious
soils, not for aquifer soils. Any user of triaxial cells can
make the following simple control test. The soil specimen
is replaced with a straight tube section, with an almost
infinite hydraulic conductivity. The permeability test, with
such a hollow cylinder, gives a K value that corresponds to
the hydraulic head losses in the pipes, valves, and porous
stones. Typically, this K value is in the 10-4–10-6 m/s
range, which means that for correctly testing a soil speci-
men in a triaxial cell, the K value of the specimen must be
lower than 10-6 m/s. The ASTM standard (ASTM 2011c)
requires lower than 10-5 m/s, and that the K value of the
porous stones must be significantly greater than that of the
specimen to be tested. This verification was not performed
for several papers (e.g., Hatanaka et al. 1997, 2001; Ban-
dini and Shathiskumar 2009), for which the reported
K values seem abnormally low. Mistake No.12 is easy to
avoid by running prior verification tests with hollow
cylinders.
Mistake No.13: clogging of porous stones is frequent
when testing mixes of fine and coarse soils, for example
sand-bentonite mixes (Chapuis 1990a, 2002) or mixes of
sand and small amounts of silt, which can migrate through
the void space of the sand, and then reach the porous stone
against which fine particles accumulate whilst some of
these fine particles penetrate and clog the porous stone.
Experiments can be done with filter paper between the
porous stones and the specimen. The filter paper then
protects the stones from clogging: bentonite or other fine
particles cannot reach the valves and the burettes. This may
be important if the stones (e.g., stainless steel), or the set
‘‘stones ? filter paper’’, must be tested alone (no specimen
in the cell) to prove null interference with chemical pro-
cesses, before each test with a soil specimen. In one case, a
K value of 10-8 m/s was found for a sand and gravel
specimen, tested in a triaxial cell. It was proven later that
the true K value was in the 10-4 m/s range, and that the
porous stones of the triaxial cell were heavly clogged with
clay particles (testing clay had been the common use of the
cell). The simple control test, presented in mistake No. 12,
testing a hollow cylinder, should be done as a routine test,
with a set of new stones, and also with old stones. The
difference in the K values for sets of new and old stones,
gives an indication of how much the old stones are clog-
ged. Mistake No.13 is easy to avoid with the prior verifi-
cation test.
Mistake No.14: testing heterogeneous soil specimens
cannot yield a good correlation between some average
vertical Kave value and some average void ratio eave. This
happens with specimens containing several intact layers
(each layer thickness may vary, and each layer void ratio
123
408
may vary) as tested by Hatanaka et al. (1997, 2001). This
happens also when testing artificial (man-made) mixes of
several layers, or a specimen that contains a heavily re-
moulded portion and a slightly remoulded portion. To
obtain good correlations between K and e, the specimens
must be homogenous in GSDC and e.
Grain size distribution curve (GSDC)
The GSDC may be established using different standards
(e.g., ASTM 2011d). It is usually plotted as the percentage
p of solid mass smaller than size d (mm), as determined by
sieving and hydrometer test, against the decimal logarithm
of d, log(d), thus yielding a curve p(d). The GSDC is then a
cumulative distribution function, defined as the integral of
the probability density distribution of grain sizes (histo-
gram); the density distribution is rarely plotted and used in
engineering.
The GSDC is used to define any grain size dx as the size
such that x % of the solid mass is made of grains finer than
dx. The size d10 is called the effective size. The uniformity
coefficient CU is defined as the ratio d60/d10.
Laboratory permeability tests must take into account the
risks of segregation and suffossion (internal erosion),
which means that either existing or newly created fine
particles migrate within the void space of the tested spec-
imen. First, let us explain the origin of the word ‘‘suffos-
sion’’, an old English and French word, derived from Latin
(Chapuis 1992). Three words have been used to describe
the migration of fine soil particles within the soil pore
space: ‘‘suffusion’’, ‘‘suffosion’’ and ‘‘suffossion’’. The
English version of the textbook by Kovács (1981) used the
word ‘‘suffusion’’ to describe such motion of fine grains in
the pore space of a soil. However, ‘‘suffusion’’, mainly
used in medicine, basically refers to a permeating process,
often a fluid movement towards a surface or over a surface.
Thus, using it for internal erosion, a movement of solids,
would be incorrect, either in English or in French. The
second word, ‘‘suffosion’’, appeared in the translation of
Russian papers, where it was also used to describe internal
erosion. It was also used by Kenney and Lau (1985) who
referred to Lubochkov (1965, 1969). But this word is not
found in English and French dictionaries. The correct word
is ‘‘suffossion’’ with two each of the letters f and s, which
comes from the Latin ‘‘suffossio, onis’’, and can be found
for example in Volume 10 of the Oxford English Dictio-
nary (Oxford University 1970). This is the correct word
that is used in this paper.
Three criteria are used to verify the risk of suffossion of
non-cohesive soils, those of Kezdi (1969), Sherard (1979)
and Kenney and Lau (1985, 1986), based on the work of
Lubochkov (1965, 1969). Usually, they involved cumber-
some calculations. The GSDC is split at a value of d, the
123
R. P. Chapuis
GSDC of the coarse and fine fractions thus defined are
calculated, and the filter criteria between the fine and
coarse fractions are verified. The procedure is cumbersome
because it must be repeated several times at several split-
ting values of d. Using the grain-size curve coordinates,
simple equations were established for each criterion
(Chapuis 1992; Chapuis and Tournier 2006). As a result,
the three criteria can be simply verified by graphical
superimposition as in the example of Fig. 2.
In Fig. 2, the soil curve to be checked (bold, hollow
circles) is drawn with the three criteria of Sherard (dash
bold line of slope 21.5% per cycle), Kezdi (bold line of
slope 24.9% per cycle), and Kenney and Lau (fine solid
master curve). The three theoretical curves can easily be
moved in a spreadsheet by using translation factors. The
visual superposition indicates that the criteria of Sherard
and Kezdi are not satisfied: the GSDC is flatter than the
straight-line criteria at sizes smaller than about 0.08 mm).
Similarly, the criterion of Kenney and Lau is not satisfied:
the soil curve is flatter than the master curve at sizes
smaller than about 0.08 mm.
Therefore, soils that are prone to internal erosion (suf-
fossion) can be identified a priori, simply by checking their
GSDC. According to several tests, the criterion of Sherard
(1979) seems the most realistic, because examples were
found for which the Sherard criterion predicted no erosion
whereas the two other criteria predicted erosion, and no
internal erosion was observed (Chapuis et al. 1996; Cha-
puis and Tournier 2006). The complex criterion of Sherard
(1979) was shown to be equivalent to ‘‘the slope of the
GSDC must never be lower than 21.5 % per log cycle’’
(Chapuis 1992).
50
Different positions
GSDC
for the Kenney
y = % of solid mass smaller than x
and Lau criterion
40
30
20
Criterion of Sherard
10
Criterion of Kezdi
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
particle size d (mm)
Fig. 2 The GSDC of a silty sand specimen indicates that the
specimen fine portion is prone to segregation and suffossion (internal
erosion) during compaction and seepage
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils
The three criteria may be used as a screening tool for
selecting specimens to be tested, and also assessing the
quality of samples recovered in boreholes (Chapuis and
Tournier 2008). However, at least three grain size analyses
(upper, central and lower parts of the specimen) are needed
after a laboratory permeability test to assess whether
internal erosion did occur and how much, which may
depend on the porosity and the type of stresses acting on
the soil, two parameters that do not appear at present in the
internal erosion criteria.
Range of porosity for a single specimen
The GSDC by itself does not indicate how dense the
specimen is, either in the laboratory or in the field. Mass
and volume measurements are needed. We only know
a priori that the porosity n or void ratio e of this specimen
is comprised between some minimum and maximum val-
ues. The range achieved by the porosity has been studied at
length in civil engineering and powder technology (e.g., Yu
and Standish 1987), because this is a key factor for many
physical properties. A few textbooks, however, still suggest
that each GSDC has a single porosity value, which is a
mistake. For example, Vuković and Soro (1992) proposed
to assess the soil specimen porosity n using Eq. 1.
 
n ¼ 0:255 1 þ 0:83CU ð1Þ
This Eq. 1, which predicts a single porosity value for
each soil sample, is physically meaningless.
In the laboratory, mass and volume techniques are
available to accurately determine the values of n and e, as
well as the value of the degree of saturation Sr of the tested
specimen at any time during a permeability test (Chapuis
et al. 1989a). For a non-plastic soil sample, the maximum
and minimum possible values of the void ratio, emax and
emin, can be obtained experimentally using detailed labo-
ratory procedures (ASTM 2011e, f). For a plastic soil
sample, the void ratios at the liquid and plastic limits can
be used as references to define a density index ID.
For sand and gravel samples, using the data of Youd
(1973), Chapuis (2012) proposed to assess the values of
emax and emin with best fit relationships as follows.
1  
¼ 0:1457 RF 3  1:3857 RF 2 þ 1:9933 RF  0:0931 lnðCU Þ
emax
 
þ 4:3209 RF 3  8:6685 RF 2 þ 5:9588 RF  0:1552
ð2Þ
1  
¼ 7:9767 RF 3  14:623 RF 2 þ 8:8518 RF  0:721 lnðCU Þ
emin
 
þ 21:319 RF 3  32:949 RF 2 þ 17:206 RF  1:0033
ð3Þ
In Eqs. 2 and 3, RF is the roundness factor of the solid
grains, which can be estimated using visual charts (Wadell
409
1933, 1935; Krumbein 1941; Rittenhouse 1943; Powers
1953; Krumbein and Sloss 1963). The in situ compactness
and density index ID can be evaluated using in situ
mechanical (geotechnical) tests, including the standard
penetration test.
Specific surface
Many methods can be used to measure or assess the specific
surface SS of soils (Lowell and Shields 1991), several of them
requiring high-tech equipment: they are not commonly used
in soil mechanics and hydrogeology. In the case of clays,
each method measures different surface areas (Cerato 2001;
Yukselen-Aksoy and Kaya 2006, 2010), because clay par-
ticles have external, internal and total surfaces, and their
basal, edge and interlayer surfaces have different properties.
Furthermore, several authors tested clays for which the
consistency data fall well below the A-line in the clay clas-
sification diagram, meaning clays containing organic matter,
which increases the SS value. The contribution of organic
matter to SS is important but not well known. Such clays (top
soils) are not considered in this paper.
Hereafter, make a distinction is made between non-
plastic soils for which SS can be assessed using the GSDC,
and plastic soils for which Ss can be assessed using rela-
tionships with the consistency limits.
Specific surface of non-plastic soils
In soil mechanics and hydrogeology, the specific surface SS
of a soil specimen is rarely measured and used. However,
several predictive equations are available based on the
GSDC, most of them simple, often based on local experi-
ence, a few of them subjective. An operator-independent
method to estimate SS from the complete GSDC (i.e.,
including sieving and sedimentation) was proposed by
Chapuis and Légaré (1992). This method was used to
evaluate the capability of the Kozeny-Carman equation to
predict the soil Ksat value, using numerous high quality
laboratory test data (Chapuis and Aubertin 2003). It pro-
ceeds as follows. If d is the diameter (in m) of a solid
sphere or the side of a solid cube of solid density qs (kg/
m3), the specific surface SS (in m2/kg) of a group of such
spheres or cubes is given by:
6
SS ðdÞ ¼ ð4Þ
d qs
Many theoretical developments start with Eq. 4 and
obtain SS by introducing shape, roughness, or projection
factors (e.g., Dallavale 1948; Orr and Dallavale 1959;
Gregg and Sing 1967). In the case of non-plastic soils,
Chapuis and Légaré (1992) have proposed to apply Eq. 4
simply as follows:
123
410 R. P. Chapuis

Table 2 Estimating the specific surface SS of a non-plastic soil (silty estimate the non-plastic soil specific surface SS to be used
sand) in the Kozeny-Carman equation. There are other methods,
Specific surface (m2/kg) for organic top soils, to estimate the specimen SS using the
geometric mean and standard deviation of the particle size,
Grain size % passing Gs Ss = 6/dps XSs
2.740 which may be related to fractions of clay, silt and sand in
d (mm) 1 Diff. X m2/kg m2/kg the specimen (e.g., Sepaskhah et al. 2010), but these
methods are outside the scope of this paper.
100.00 100.0
50.00 100.0 0.000 0.04 0.00
Specific surface of plastic soils
25.00 100.0 0.000 0.09 0.00
20.00 100.0 0.000 0.11 0.00 The methods for measuring the SS value of plastic soils
14.00 98.8 0.012 0.16 0.00 involve adsorption of either a gas or a polar liquid. For
10.00 97.5 0.013 0.22 0.00 example, the BET method (Brunauer et al. 1938) uses
5.00 95.7 0.018 0.44 0.01 nitrogen and measures only the external surface of clays,
2.50 92.8 0.029 0.88 0.03 whereas methods using polar liquids (methylene blue,
1.25 88.1 0.047 1.75 0.08 EGME, CNB, PNP …) measure the total surface. Several
0.63 78.2 0.099 3.48 0.34 studies have compared the various methods (Cerato 2001;
0.32 62.8 0.154 6.95 1.07 Cerato and Lutenegger 2002; Santamarina et al. 2002;
0.160 44.3 0.185 13.69 2.53 Yukselen-Aksoy and Kaya 2006, 2010; Arnepalli et al.
0.080 29.6 0.147 27.37 4.02 2008; Sivappulaiah et al. 2008).
0.064 24.3 0.053 34.22 1.81 Experimental correlations were found between the total
0.046 20.3 0.040 47.60 1.89 SS and soil engineering properties, including consistency
0.033 16.8 0.035 66.36 2.35 limits, for plastic soils with or without organic matter. For
0.024 14.2 0.026 91.24 2.37 example, Cerato (2001, his Table 2.5) listed 12 correlations
0.017 12.5 0.017 128.06 2.18 between the liquid limit wL and SS as proposed by different
0.013 11.3 0.012 173.79 2.09 authors before 2001 (e.g., De Bruyn et al. 1957; Farrar and
0.009 10.2 0.011 243.31 2.68 Coleman 1967; Locat et al. 1984; Sridharan et al. 1986,
0.0064 8.1 0.021 342.15 7.19 1988; Muhunthan 1991). More data were published after
0.0046 6.4 0.017 476.04 8.09 2001 (e.g., Mbonimpa et al. 2002; Chapuis and Aubertin
0.0034 3.7 0.027 644.05 17.39 2003; Arnepalli et al. 2008; Dolinar and Trauner 2004;
0.0027 2.5 0.012 811.03 9.73 Dolinar et al. 2007; Dolinar 2009), including more corre-
0.001349 1.2 0.013 1,623.36 21.27 lations. It seems that wL can be used to predict Ss; however
7.79E-04 0.012 2,811.74 33.46 a calibration is needed using soils having regionally similar
Specific surface SS sum 120.57 origin and characteristics, or clays having similar miner-
alogy. In general, the correlation between wL and SS is
6 X PNo:D  PNo:d weak as shown in Fig. 3, where the data of Chapuis and
SS ðdÞ ¼ ð5Þ Aubertin (2003) include those of De Bruyn et al. (1957),
qs d
Farrar and Coleman (1967), Locat et al. (1984), Sridharan
where (PNo.D-PNo.d) is the percentage of solid mass et al. (1986, 1988).
smaller than size D (PNo.D), and larger than the next size In practice, unless a local correlation between wL and SS
d (PNo.d). Table 2 shows how to use the complete GSDC of is available, Ksat(e) is usually predicted using a semi-log
the soil specimen to calculate SS. law or a power law after the laboratory measurement of one
If dmin is the smallest measured particle size of the Ksat(e0) value for a first void ratio e0 or a set of Ksat(ei)
GSDC, an equivalent size, deq., must be defined for all for several void ratios ei,. This will be presented in
particles smaller than dmin: it corresponds to the mean size ‘‘Comparing the performances’’ in ‘‘Predicting methods
with respect to the specific surface (Chapuis and Légaré for plastic soils’’.
1992) and is defined as.
Zdmin 2
2 1 dmin Predictive methods: historical background
deq: ¼ y2 dy ¼ ð6Þ
dmin 3
0
The saturated hydraulic conductivity Ksat can be predicted
For the example of Table 2 where dmin equals 1.35 lm, using several methods, such as empirical relationships,
deq is 0.78 lm. This method (Eqs. 5, 6) was used here to capillary models, statistical models and hydraulic radius

123
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils
1000
100
S s (m /g)
2
10 Cerato 2001 nat clays
Chapuis Aubertin 2003
Dolinar Trauner 2004
Arnepalli et al. 2008
Dolinar 2009
Yukselen Kaya 2010
1 (2006), Ross et al. (2007), Mesri and Aljouni (2007), Dol-
1 10 100 1000 10000
Liquid Limit w L (%)
Fig. 3 Weak correlation between the specific surface SS and the
liquid limit wL
theories (Scheidegger 1974; Bear 1972; Houpeurt 1974).
The best models include at least three parameters to
account for relationships between flow rate and porous
space, such as fluid properties, void space and solid grain
surface characteristics.
According to the preceding discussion of predictive
methods and laboratory permeability tests, a reliable pre-
dictive method should take into account: (1) the porosity
n or the void ratio e; (2) some characteristic grain size or
the specific surface of the solid grains; (3) only tests which
were performed on fully saturated specimens; (4) only tests
in which parasitic head losses were excluded by using
lateral manometers, or proven to be negligible (most tests
on cohesive soils tested in œdometers or triaxial cells); and
(5) only tests on specimens that are not prone to internal
erosion.
Since Seelheim (1880) wrote that Ksat should be related
to the squared value of some pore diameter, many predictive
equations for Ksat have been proposed. Table 3 lists 45
predictive methods with their characteristics: type of soil for
which they were proposed, use of either some grain size (d5,
d10, d17 or d50) or specific surface SS, condition on the
coefficient of uniformity CU for non-plastic soils, use of
porosity n or void ratio e, and which checks were done on
the tests (direct measurement of the degree of saturation Sr,
use or not of lateral manometers, verification of internal
erosion). The predictive methods of Table 3 were proposed
by Seelheim (1880), Hazen (1892), Slichter (1898), Ter-
zaghi (1925), Mavis and Wilsey (1937), Tickell and Hiatt
(1938), Krumbein and Monk (1942), Craeger et al. (1947)
for the USBR formula, Taylor (1948), Loudon (1952),
Kozeny (1953), Wyllie and Gardner (1958a, b) for the
generalized Kozeny-Carman equation, Harleman (1963),
Beyer (1964), Masch and Denny (1966), Nishida and
Nakagawa (1969), Wiebenga et al. (1970), Mesri and Olson
411
(1971), Beard and Weyl (1973), Navfac DM7 (1974), Sa-
marasinghe et al. (1982), Carrier and Beckman (1984),
Summers and Weber (1984), Kenney et al. (1984), Shahabi
et al. (1984), Vienken and Dietrich (2011) for the method of
Kaubisch and Fischer (1985), Driscoll (1986) for the charts
of Prugh (Moretrench American Corporation), Shepherd
(1989) and discussion by Davis (1989), Uma et al. (1989),
Nagaraj et al. (1991), Vukovic and Soro (1992) for the
Sauerbrei formula, Alyamani and Sen (1993), Sperry and
Pierce (1995), Boadu (2000), Sivappulaiah et al. (2000),
Mbonimpa et al. (2002), Chapuis and Aubertin (2003),
Chapuis (2004b), Berilgen et al. (2006), Chapuis et al.
inar (2009), Sezer et al. (2009), and Arya et al. (2010).
Comments on predictive methods
Table 3 presents a clear picture of 45 predictive methods
and their characteristics and/or limitations. Considering
what is presently known on how to correctly perform
laboratory permeability tests and how to build a complete
predictive method, several comments can be made on
Table 3.
Surprisingly, several predictive methods proposed
before 2000 consider neither the porosity n nor the void
ratio e, which means that for a given soil, these methods
predict the same Ksat value for dense, medium or loose
packing state. This first surprise may be related to the
wrong belief that each soil has its own and unique porosity,
whereas each soil has a range of values for its porosity.
After 2000, all predictive methods listed in Table 3 do
consider either n or e.
Until recently, very few predictive methods for non-
plastic soils used rigid-wall permeability test data for
which the real degree of saturation was determined. Hence,
many predictive methods used test data for which Sr = 100
% was assumed incorrectly, but was not checked using
either direct or indirect techniques. Most undisturbed
plastic soil cores, however, when tested in œdometers or
triaxial cells, were fully saturated.
Many predictive methods for non-plastic soils were
calibrated using laboratory tests for which lateral manom-
eters were not used, leading to poor tests with unknown
parasitic head losses. In the case of œdometers and triaxial
cells, lateral manometers usually are not installed and used
(the mention ‘‘n/a’’ in Table 3 means not applicable).
Further, many most predictive methods were calibrated
using laboratory permeability test data without checking,
before the test, the GSDC for potential internal erosion and
without measuring, after the test, how much erosion did
occur during the test.
For non-plastic soils most predictive methods use the
effective grain size d10, with a few exceptions that use d5,
123
412 R. P. Chapuis

Table 3 Predictive methods and their characteristics

No. Author(s) Year Characteristics of the predictive method Checks on tests
Type of d10, d50 Condition Consideration Sr = 100 % Lateral Conditions
soil or d5 on CU of either verified manometers for
n or e internal
erosion

1 Seelheim 1880 any soil d50 No No No No No

2 Hazen 1892 Sand, gravel d10 Yes e & emax No No No
3 Slichter 1898 Spheres No, only one No YES No No No
size
4 Terzaghi 1925 Sand d10 No YES No No No
5 Mavis and Wilsey 1937 Sand d50, d10 or d34 No YES No No No
6 Tickell and Hiatt 1938 Sand d50 No One value No No No
7 Krumbein and Monk 1942 Sand d50 and std dev. Yes No No YES No
8 Craeger et al. N1 1947 Sand, gravel d20 Yes No No No No
9 Taylor 1948 Sand, clay No, theory No YES No No No
10 Loudon 1952 Any soil Specific surface No YES No YES No
11 Kozeny 1953 Sand d10 No YES No No No
12 Wyllie and Gardner 1958a, Any soil Specific surface No YES – – –
b
13 Harleman 1963 Sand d50 (Cu \ 1.15) No One value No No No
14 Beyer 1964 Sand d10 Yes No No No No
15 Masch and Denny 1966 Sand d50 and std dev. Yes No No No No
16 Nishida and 1969 Clay IP No YES YES N/A No
Nakagawa
17 Wiebenga et al. 1970 Sand, silt Specific yield, No No No No No
d10
18 Mesri and Olson N2 1971 Clay No, power law No YES ? No ?
19 Beard and Weyl 1973 Sand d5o Yes YES No YES No
20 Navfac DM7 1974 Sand, gravel d10 Yes YES No No No
21 Samarasinghe et al. 1982 Clay IP no YES YES N/A No
22 Carrier and 1984 Clay IP and wP No YES YES N/A No
Beckman
23 Summers and Weber 1984 Any soil % clay % sand No No No No No
24 Kenney et al. 1984 Sand d5 Yes YES No No No
25 Shahabi et al. 1984 Sand d10 Yes YES No No No
26 Kaubisch and 1985 Any soil P \ 0.06 mm No No No No No
Fischer
27 Driscoll N3 1986 Gravel, sand d50 and CU Yes YES, 3 charts No No No
28 Shepherd 1989 Sand, silt d50? or d10? N4 No No No No No
29 Uma et al. 1989 Sand d10 No No No No No
30 Nagaraj et al. 1991 Clay wL No YES YES N/A No
31 Vukovic and Soro 1992 Sand d17 No Yes? No No No
N5
32 Alyamani and Sen 1993 Mostly sand diff (d50–d10) No No No No No
33 Sperry and Pierce 1995 Granular d10 No No No No No
34 Boadu 2000 Any soil Fractals No YES No No No
35 Sivappulaiah et al. 2000 Clay wL ([50 %) No YES ? No No
36 Mbonimpa et al. 2002 Any soil d10, wL Yes YES Some Some Some
37 Chapuis and 2003 Any soil Specific surface No YES YES YES YES
Aubertin

123
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils 413

Table 3 continued
No. Author(s) Year Characteristics of the predictive method Checks on tests
Type of d10, d50 Condition Consideration Sr = 100 % Lateral Conditions
soil or d5 on CU of either verified manometers for
n or e internal
erosion

38 Chapuis 2004b Natural, d10 No YES YES YES YES

IP = 0
39 Berilgen et al. 2006 Clay IP and IL No YES YES N/A No
40 Chapuis et al. 2006 Compacted N and Sr No YES YES N/A YES
clay
41 Ross et al. 2007 Any Fuzzy logic No YES No No No
42 Mesri and Aljouni 2007 Peat No No YES ? ? ?
43 Dolinar 2009 Clay IP and No YES YES N/A No
% \2 mm
44 Sezer et al. 2009 Granular Fuzzy logic No YES No No No
45 Arya et al. N6 2010 Golf sand PSDC No YES No No No
N1 Cited for the USBR formula
N2 The power law becomes a predictive method if an initial value of K0(e0) is known
N3 Cited for the charts of prugh (Moretrench)
N4 See the discussion by Davis (1989)
N5 Cited for the Sauerbrei formula
N6 The method uses the pore size distribution curve. The predicted K value may be negative

d17, d20, d34, or d50 (Table 3). In several experimental
studies of the GSDC influence on K (at some Sr value,
because these studies could not confirm that Sr = 100%),
the correlations between K and d10 were better than those
between K and d17, d20 or d50. For example, Moraes (1971)
found that using d50 gave about 3 times more scatter than
using d10. As a result, the effective diameter d10 seems to
adequately represent the influence of the smallest particles
on the pore sizes and water seepage.
Methods presented in detail
Considering the previous comments, and the detailed list of
14 mistakes (usually, only a few of them can be detected in
publications), not all methods listed in Table 3 will be
presented hereafter. Only those methods that are deemed to
be the most reliable are presented in the two next sections,
‘‘Predictive methods for non-plastic soils’’, and ‘‘Predictive
methods for plastic soils’’.
The predictive methods for non-plastic soils which are
deemed to be the most reliable and whose performances
will be compared are: Hazen (1892) coupled with Taylor
(1948) to encompass any void ratio, Terzaghi (1925),
Navfac DM7 (1974), Shahabi et al. (1984), Mbonimpa
et al. (2002), Kozeny-Carman when the specific surface is
known with enough accuracy (Chapuis and Aubertin 2003,
2004), and Chapuis (2004b). The ‘‘Predictive methods for
non-plastic soils’’ briefly presents these methods, and then
assesses their predictions using a data set for high quality
laboratory tests.
The following predictive methods for intact or remoulded
plastic soils (without fissures or secondary porosity) have
been selected, and their performances are assessed in ‘‘Pre-
dictive methods for plastic soils’’: Kozeny-Carman, and
equations of Nishida and Nakagawa (1969), Samarasinghe
et al. (1982), Carrier and Beckman (1984), Nagaraj et al.
(1991), Sivappulaiah et al. (2000), Mbonimpa et al. (2002),
Berilgen et al. (2006) and Dolinar (2009), which can be used
to provide either an estimate of the full Ksat(e) relationship or
an initial value K0(e0) to be used in semi-log and power law
semi-predictive equations. Finally, for compacted plastic
soils (used as liners and covers, with or without fissures), the
equations of Chapuis et al. (2006) can be used.
Comparing their performances is essential, since a given
equation may work well (give a good fit) for the few tests it
was derived for, those tests being biased by the same
mistakes. However, it will not work for other tests, which
include different mistakes or none. Working well, for a
predictive equation, may simply mean that there is some
consistency in its data and their errors, but working well for
a few tests does not mean that the predictive method is
reliable.

123
414 R. P. Chapuis

Predictive methods for non-plastic soils The A value is extracted from Eq. 12, and then used in
Eq. 11. A second way to proceed is to use the ratio of two
Seven predictive methods were retained as having poten- K values directly to eliminate the coefficient A:
tial, and are presented here.  3  
Ksat ðeÞ e 1 þ emax
¼ 3 : ð13Þ
Ksat ðHazenÞ emax 1þe
Hazen (1892) coupled with Taylor (1948)
Terzaghi (1925)
Hazen’s equation applies to loose uniform sand with a
uniformity coefficient CU B 5 and a grain size d10 between Terzaghi (1925) proposed, for sand, that
0.1 and 3 mm. First, one must verify whether or not the  
l10 n  0:13 2 2
four conditions—(1) sand, (2) ‘‘loose’’ meaning that the Ksat ðcm=sÞ ¼ C0 p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi d10 ; ð14Þ
void ratio e is close to emax, its maximum value, (3) lT 3
1n
‘‘CU B 5’’ and (4) ‘‘0.1 B d10 B 3 mm’’—are satisfied. If where the constant C0 equals 8 for smooth rounded grains
the four conditions are not satisfied, Hazen’s equation loses and 4.6 for irregularly shaped grains, and l10 and lS are the
accuracy. Most textbooks refer to (Hazen 1911) and pres- water viscosities at 10 C and T (C) respectively. Labo-
ent Eq. 7 where d10 is expressed in mm: ratory tests are usually performed close to T = 20 C, for
Ksat ðcm=sÞ ¼ ðd10 Þ2 : ð7Þ which the ratio of viscosities is 1.30.

This Eq. 7 is not the true Hazen’s equation, which is Kozeny-Carman, specific surface
(Hazen 1892):
     Following independent work by Kozeny (1927) and Car-
d10 2 T
Ksat ðcm=sÞ ¼ 1:157 0:70 þ 0:03  ð8Þ man (1937, 1938a, b, 1939, 1956), who never published
1 mm 1 C
together, and were interested in permeability testing of
in which the water temperature T is in degrees Celsius. The industrial powders to determine their specific surface, the
common equation in textbooks corresponds to T = 5.5 C. so-called Kozeny-Carman equation for hydraulic conduc-
In laboratory tests, the reference temperature is presently tivity (e.g., Wyllie and Gardner 1958a, b) can be presented
20 C, and thus under several forms, for example
 
Ksat ð20  C; emax ; cm=sÞ ¼ 1:50d10
2
mm2 : ð9Þ g e3
Ksat ¼ C 2
; ð15Þ
lw qw SS G2s ð1 þ eÞ
For field conditions, for example at 10 C, one should
use where C is a constant which depends on the porous space
  geometry, g the gravitational constant (m/s2), lw the
Ksat ð10  C; emax ; cm=sÞ ¼ 1:16d10
2
mm2 : ð10Þ
dynamic viscosity of water (Pas), qw the density of water
As discussed above, Hazen’s equation predicts the K value (kg/m3), qs the density of solids (kg/m3), Gs the specific
for loose uniform sand (e & emax). Various equations are gravity of solids (Gs = qs/qw), SS the specific surface
also available to define K as a function of void ratio e, i.e. (surface of solids in m2/mass of solids in kg) and, e the void
K = K(e). Taylor (1948) proposed an equation similar to that ratio. Equation 15 predicts that, for a given soil specimen,
known as Kozeny-Carman, expressed as there should be a proportionality between its Ksat values
and its values of e3/(1 ? e). It can also be used to predict
e3
Ksat ðeÞ ¼ A : ð11Þ the intrinsic permeability, k (unit m2), knowing that:
1þe
In Eq. 11, the coefficient A (same units as Ksat) has a Ksat lw
k¼ : ð16Þ
specific value for each soil. The A value can be obtained cw
from a first set of experimental values (e, Ksat). Here, for a According to soil mechanics textbooks (e.g., Taylor
prediction, one can use Hazen’s equation to predict Ksat 1948; Lambe and Whitman 1969), the Kozeny-Carman
(emax) and then Taylor’s equation to predict Ksat (e) for any equation would be roughly valid for sands, but not for
e value. One way to proceed is to write: clays. Some hydrogeology textbooks share the same
    
d10 2 T opinion, although they generally use an equation without
Ksat ðcm=sÞ ¼ 1:157 0:70 þ 0:03  the specific surface SS but with an equivalent (usually not
1 mm 1 C
e 3 defined) diameter deff for the soil, the two forms being
¼ A max : ð12Þ equivalent (Barr 2001; Trani and Indraratna 2010).
1 þ emax

123
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils
In practice, Eq. 15 is not easy to use, the difficulty being
to determine either the specific surface SS or the equivalent
diameter deff. The SS value can be either measured or
estimated. Several methods are available for measuring the
specific surface (e.g., Dallavale 1948; Lowell and Shields
1991) but they are not commonly used in soil mechanics
and hydrogeology. In addition, such methods seem accu-
rate only for granular soils with few non-plastic fine par-
ticles. These practical difficulties may explain why the
Kozeny-Carman predictive equation has not been com-
monly used, until recently (e.g., Chapuis and Aubertin
2003, 2004; Carrier 2003; Hansen 2004; Aubertin et al.
2005; Côté et al. 2011; Esselburn et al. 2011).
Chapuis and Aubertin (2003) examined, in detail, the
capacity of Eq. 15 and concluded that it may be used for
any soil, either plastic or non-plastic, under the form
 
e3
logðKsat Þ ¼ 0:5 þ log : ð17Þ
G2s S2S ð1 þ eÞ
In Eq. 17, Ksat is in m/s, SS is in m2/kg, and Gs is
dimensionless. Usually, Eq. 17 predicts a Ksat value
between one-third and three times the Ksat value obtained
with a high quality laboratory test and a fully saturated
specimen.
For non-plastic soils, using the Kozeny-Carman equa-
tion requires knowing SS and thus having a complete
GSDC (sieving and sedimentation). Often sedimentation is
not done for non-plastic soils. This is why other predictive
methods, relying on readily determined parameters, have
been developed for non-plastic soils.
Navfac DM7 (1974)
The chart of Navfac DM7 (1974) provides Ksat as a func-
tion of e and d10, under five conditions: (1) sand or a mix of
sand and gravel, (2) 2 B CU B 12, (3) d10/d5 B 1.4, (4)
0.1 B d10 (mm) B 2 mm, and (5) 0.3 B e B 0.7. This
chart can be summarized by the formula (Chapuis et al.
1989b):
0:55040:2937 e
Ksat ðcm=sÞ ¼ 101:291e0:6435 ðd10 Þ 10 : ð18Þ
Programming this power-of-power equation is prone to
errors. It is thus recommended to check the program
predictions against the values shown in the chart. If the five
conditions are not satisfied, the predicted Ksat value will
lose accuracy.
Shahabi et al. (1984)
Shahabi et al. (1984) took a single sand sample in the field,
and separated its fractions by sieving. These fractions were
mixed in various proportions to obtain four groups of five
new samples each, each group having a single d10 value
415
and several CU values. The data of constant-head perme-
ability tests performed in rigid-wall permeameters gave
them the following correlation
e3
ksat ðcm=sÞ ¼ 1:2 CU0:735 d10
0:89
: ð19Þ
1þe
This equation was used for a few sand specimens
verifying four conditions: (1) sand, (2) 1.2 B CU B 8, (3)
0.15 B d10 (mm) B 0.59 mm, and (4) 0.38 B e B 0.73.
Mbonimpa et al. (2002)
For non-plastic soils, Mbonimpa et al. (2002) proposed
cw 1=3 2 e3þx
Ksat ðcm=sÞ ¼ CG C d ð20Þ
lw U 10 1 þ e
A warning must be made for Eq. 20: d10 here is in cm.
The parameters of Eq. 20 take the following values:
CG = 0.1, cw = 9.8 kN/m3, lw & 10-3 Pas, and x = 2.
The predictions of Eq. 20 for non-plastic soils were found
to be usually within half an order of magnitude, for natural
soils, crushed materials such as mine tailings, and low
plasticity silts.
Chapuis (2004b)
This equation was obtained as a best-fit equation, corre-
lating the values of (d10)2 e3/(1 ? e) to the measured Ksat
values for homogenized specimens, high quality laboratory
tests, and fully saturated specimens (Chapuis 2004b). It
may be used for any natural non-plastic soil, including silty
soils. For crushed materials, its accuracy may be poor, and
specific predictive methods may be required (Aubertin
et al. 1996). The predictive equation links Ksat to d10 and e
as follows:
 2 3 0:7825
d10 e
Ksat ðcm=sÞ ¼ 2:4622 : ð21Þ
1þe
Good predictions (usually between half and twice the
measured values) were obtained for natural soils in the
following ranges, 0.003 B d10 (mm) B 3 mm and
0.3 B e B 1 (Chapuis 2004b), which means that three
conditions must be met for this method (natural, d10 and e).
Current data appear in Fig. 4.
With crushed materials, such as crushed stone and mine
tailings, the predictions of Eq. 21 are usually poor (Cha-
puis 2004b) as shown with a few data in Fig. 5. At least
three factors can explain the poor correlation. First, crushed
materials have angular, sometimes acicular, particles,
which increases the tortuosity effect as compared with
natural rounded or sub-rounded particles. Second, as a
result, the void space geometry of crushed materials is
unlike that of natural soils. Third, several phenomena may
123
416 R. P. Chapuis

1.E+01 100
0.7825 Navfac DM7
y = 2.4622 x
90 Hazen-Taylor

cumulative percentage of cases

1.E+00 0.003 mm < d 10 < 3 mm Terzaghi
80 Chapuis
0.3 < e < 1.0
Shahabi et al.
70 Mbonimpa et al.
measured K sat (cm/s)

1.E-01
60
1.E-02
50

Mavis and Wilsey 40

1.E-03 Krumbein and Monk
Loudon glass beads
Chapuis et al. (sand) 30
Wiebenga et al.
1.E-04 Sperry and Pierce 20
non plastic silty sand
Harleman
Shahabi et al. 10
1.E-05 Arya et al.
power law
2.0 x power law 0
0.5 x power law -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
1.E-06 log (measured K sat / predicted K sat)
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
2 3
d 10 e / (1+e ) Fig. 6 Non-plastic soils: comparison of predictive equations of
Hazen (1892) combined with Taylor (1948), Terzaghi (1925), Navfac
Fig. 4 Measured versus predicted values of Ksat for non-plastic DM7 (1974), Shahabi et al. (1984), Mbonimpa et al. (2002), and
natural soils, using Eq. 20 (with values added to the Figure of Chapuis (2004b)
Chapuis 2004b)

1.E+01 compared for a set of high quality fully saturated laboratory

Data that are OFF may be due to
1.E+00 either preferential flow channels, tests (Fig. 6). This set has more data than the set of Chapuis
or clogging by migration of fines. (2004b), and is used here to assess more methods. The tests
1.E-01
were performed on homogenous non-plastic soil speci-
measured K sat (cm/s)

1.E-02 mens, which were 100% saturated using de-aired water and
either a vacuum or back-pressure technique, and which
1.E-03
were not prone to internal erosion. Aquifer soils were
1.E-04 tested in rigid-wall permeameters equipped with lateral
1.E-05 gravel, sand manometers. Aquitard non-plastic soils were tested in
silt flexible-wall permeameters (triaxial cells).
1.E-06 crushed sand
crushed stone
The comparison is presented as y = the percentage of
1.E-07 mine tailings cases smaller than x, where x = log (measured Ksat/pre-
power law, eq. 17 dicted Ksat). The methods of Hazen (1892) combined with
1.E-08 2.0 x power law
0.5 x power law Taylor (1948), Terzaghi (1925), and Shahabi et al. (1984)
1.E-09 provide usually fair predictions. The equation of Chapuis
1.E+00
1.E-08

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

(2004b) was designed to have a mean of zero with the

smallest dispersion: this property is still verified here with
2 3
(d 10) e / (1+e ) more data than in 2004.
As explained in Chapuis (2004b), other predictive
Fig. 5 Poor predictions are obtained using Eq. 20 for crushed
equations for non-plastic soils (mostly sand and gravel,
materials
most of them less complete than the seven retained here)
take place during testing of crushed materials (Bussière have a much lower predictive capacity than those retained
2007), such as creation of new fines (DeJong and Christoph in this section (‘‘Predictive methods for non-plastic soils’’).
2009) and migration of these fines during testing (Chapuis
et al. 1996), which are not easy to consider in predictive
equations. Predictive methods for plastic soils

Comparing the performances Natural soils without fissures

To conclude ‘‘Predictive methods for non-plastic soils’’, As already shown, the Kozeny-Carman equation can be
the selected predictive methods for non-plastic soils are used for the predictions, and there are several methods to

123
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils 417

1.E-05 presented here in chronological order. Having obtained Ksat

Kozeny-Carman, Eq. 15, S s is known values by analysing consolidation settlement data, Nishida
1.E-06 and Nakagawa (1969) proposed
e ¼ ð0:01 IP þ 0:05Þð10 þ log Ksat Þ: ð23Þ
1.E-07
predicted K sat (m/s)

In Eq. 23, Ksat is in cm/s, and IP is in percentage.

Dassargues et al. (1991) used this type of correlation
1.E-08
between Ksat and e, but with specific coefficients for their
clays.
1.E-09
Determining the Ksat value of normally consolidated
tailings (mod. KC) remoulded clays using Terzaghi’s consolidation theory,
1.E-10 silt-sand (author)
Al-Tabbaa & Wood Samarasinghe et al. (1982) proposed
Dolinar 2009
Champlain Sea clay ex
1.E-11 bentonite-author Ksat ¼ C : ð24Þ
equality 1þe
y = 3x
y = x/3 In Eq. 25, Ksat is in m/s, x is about 5 (or in a range of
1.E-12
3.97–6.39, according to Sridharan and Nagaraj 2005), and
1.E-12

1.E-11

1.E-10

1.E-09

1.E-08

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05
C (m/s) can be assessed by
measured K sat (m/s) C ¼ 0:00104 IP5:2 : ð25Þ
Fig. 7 Performance of the Kozeny-Carman equation (Eq. 17) when Nagaraj et al. (1991) observed that all clays have almost
the specific surface is known (adapted from Chapuis and Aubertin
2003)
the same Ksat value at their limit liquid wL. For normally
consolidated clay, the test starting with a clay slurry at
w = wL, Nagaraj et al. (1993) proposed
measure or estimate the SS value of plastic soils. For e
example, following Muhunthan (1991) who stated that ¼ 2:162 þ 0:195 logðKsat Þ: ð26Þ
eL
there should be a correlation between 1/SS, and 1/wL,
Chapuis and Aubertin (2003) used many data for plastic Whereas Nagaraj et al. (1994) proposed
soils (De Bruyn et al. 1957; Farrar and Coleman 1967; e
Locat et al. 1984; Sridharan et al. 1986, 1988; Muhunthan ¼ 2:28 þ 0:233 logðKsat Þ ð27Þ
eL
1991). They found a linear correlation (R2 = 0.83)
between 1/SS (where SS is in m2/g) and 1/wL, (where the and Prakash and Sridharan (2002) proposed
liquid limit wL is in percentage), which is valid for e
wL \ 110 %: ¼ 2:23 þ 0:204 logðKsat Þ: ð28Þ
eL
1 1:3513
¼  0:0089: ð22Þ In Eqs. 26–28, Ksat is in cm/s, and eL is the void ratio at
SS wL
the liquid limit. Equations 26–28 imply that, at the liquid
Usually, the Kozeny-Carman equation (Eq. 17) predicts limit (e/eL = 1), the Ksat value takes a constant value
a Ksat value between one-third and three times the Ksat whatever the clay.
value obtained with a high quality laboratory test and a Performing œdometer tests with sand-bentonite mixtures
fully saturated specimen. The predicted versus measured (wL [ 50 %), and determining the Ksat value using Ter-
Ksat values appear in Fig. 7 for fine-grained soils (either zaghi’s consolidation theory, Sivappulaiah et al. (2000)
plastic or not) for which the specific surface is known proposed four relationships where Ksat is in m/s, the best
(Chapuis and Aubertin 2003). correlation being obtained with Eq. 30:
Mbonimpa et al. (2002) proposed a power law rela-
tionship between wL and Ss, which provides similar SS logðKsat Þ ¼ 53:06 e w0:846
L  11:8 ð29Þ
estimates for wL \ 110%. Equation 22 predicts an SS e  0:0535wL  5:286
value usually within ±25 % of the measured value when logðKsat Þ ¼ ð30Þ
0:0063wL þ 0:2516
1/wL [ 0.0167 (wL \ 60 %). The predictions of Eq. 22 are
poorer for clays with wL [ 60 %, especially those with ðe=eL Þ  1:16
logðKsat Þ ¼ ð31Þ
some bentonite, and organic clays. 0:242
 
Independent of the Kozeny-Carman equation, several e
logðKsat Þ ¼ 4:2 log : ð32Þ
experimental relationships were proposed and are 1:97 eL

123
418
For plastic soils, Mbonimpa et al. (2002) proposed
cw e 3þx
1 hydraulic conductivity. For preliminary designs, correla-
Ksat ¼ CP : ð33Þ
lw 1 þ e qs w2v
2
L Equations for dredged sediments were proposed for a much
The parameters to be used in Eq. 33 are: Ksat in cm/s,
CP = 5.6 g2/m4, cw & 9.8 kN/m3, lw & 10-3 Pas,
v = 1.5, qs in kg/m3, wL in %, whereas the parameter x
is defined by
x ¼ 7:7 w0:15
L  3: ð34Þ
The predicted values for plastic soils using Eqs. 33–34
were usually within half an order of magnitude of the
measured values (Mbonimpa et al. 2002).
Sridharan and Nagaraj (2005) found that Eq. 24 pro-
vided a poor correlation for their tests, and proposed to link
C (m/s) and x to the shrinkage index IS by
C ¼ 2:5  104 ð IS Þ3:69 ð35Þ
x ¼ 3:79 þ 0:044 IS : ð36Þ
With the C and x values experimentally obtained for
each specimen tested at different void ratios, they found
that Eq. 24 predicted Ksat values usually between half and
twice the measured values. However, this is not really a
prediction, since the parameters were fitted first to
experimental data.
Stating that ‘‘The portion of clay minerals p in soils can be
obtained from a particle size analysis’’, Dolinar (2009) pro-
posed three equations correlating SS to p and wL, wP and IP,
SS ¼ ðwL  31:91pÞ=0:81 ð37Þ
SS ¼ ðwP  23:16pÞ=0:27 ð38Þ
SS ¼ ðIP  8:74pÞ=0:54: ð39Þ
Dolinar (2009) then proposed the following equation to
predict Ksat
6:31  107 0:234
Ksat ¼ 3:03
e2:66ðIP 8:74pÞ : ð40Þ
ðIP  8:74pÞ
The capacities of all predictive equations for Ksat will be
assessed after presenting the equations of the next sub-
section for ‘‘Dredged sediments, without fissures’’.
Dredged sediments, without fissures
The disposal of waste slurries from mining operations and
dredging activities presents challenging problems. These
materials, when made of plastic fines, with little or large
organic content, have very high void ratios, which vary
greatly during consolidation. As a result, it may be difficult
to estimate the final volumes of such materials in disposal
facilities, and how many years they will take to consoli-
date. The correctness of estimates depends on the accuracy
123
R. P. Chapuis
of relationships between effective stresses, void ratio and
tions based on geotechnical index properties are useful.
larger range of void ratio e and variation of e during con-
solidation than the previous equations in ‘‘Natural soils
without fissures’’.
The permeability change of slurry made of plastic soil
during a 1D consolidation was described with a power law
similar to that of Mesri and Olson (1971), with two fitting
factors, C (m/s) and D (non-dimensional), such as
Ksat ¼ CeD : ð41Þ
For remoulded clays, a general permeability equation
was proposed by Carrier and Beckman (1984) and Carrier
(1986) under the form
0:0174 IP4:29
Ksat ¼ ½e  0:027ðwP  0:242 IP Þ ð42Þ
ð1 þ eÞ
in which Ksat is in m/s, e is the void ratio, wP is the plastic
limit (in percent) and IP is the plasticity index (in percent).
Equation 42 should be used with caution because it may
predict a negative Ksat value.
For fine-grained dredged materials, Morris (2003)
proposed
e
¼ 12:55 ½Ksat ð1 þ eÞ 0:109 0:372: ð43Þ
eL
In Eq. 42, Ksat is in m/s, and eL is the void ratio at the
plastic limit, wL. However, the Ksat(1 ? e) data of Morris
(2003) were scattered over about two orders of magnitude
at e = 2, and about four at e = 4. For mine tailings, which
usually contain angular and brittle particles (the GSDC is
changed, becomes finer, during settlement), Morris et al.
(2000) proposed another specific equation. The predictions
for dredged sludge were examined by Stepkowska et al.
(1995).
Using the data of a few permeability tests (constant flow
rate method, 1 h duration), Berilgen et al. (2006) correlated
the parameters C and D of Eq. 41 with the plasticity index
IP and the liquidity index IL
C ¼ exp½5:51  4 lnðIP Þ ð44Þ
D ¼ 7:52 expð0:25IL Þ: ð45Þ
Comparing the performances
The predictive capacity of equations presented in Sects.
‘‘Natural soils without fissures’’ and ‘‘Dredged sediments,
without fissures’’ (Nishida and Nakagawa 1969; Samara-
singhe et al. 1982; Carrier and Beckman 1984; Nagaraj
et al. 1991; Sivappulaiah et al. 2000; Mbonimpa et al.
2002; Berilgen et al. 2006; Dolinar 2009) is assessed here
using a large number of high quality laboratory tests. The
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils 419

data bank includes data of Tavenas et al. (1983b); Sridh- 100%

aran and Nagaraj (2005); Al-Tabbaa and Wood (1987); 90% based on

cumulative percentage of cases

consolidation tests
Babu et al. (1993); Lapierre et al. (1990); Nagaraj et al. indirect method
80%
(1994); Tan (1989); Zeng et al. (2011); Leroueil et al.
(1990); Dolinar (2009); Siddique and Safiullah (1995); 70%

Tanaka et al. (2001, 2003) and many data from the author’s 60% based on short
duration constant
laboratory. Several data were excluded for not satisfying 50% flow rate tests
one or several requirements listed above, for example data
40%
by Olsen (1960), Raymond (1966), Ag and Silva (1998), Sivappulaiah et al.
Samarasinghe et al.
Luczak-Wilamowska (2004), O’Kelly (2006), and Berilgen 30% Dolinar
Mbonimpa et al.
et al. (2006). 20% Nagaraj et al.
Carrier Beckman
The comparison is presented in Fig. 8 as y = the per- 10% Nishida Nakagawa
centage of cases smaller than x, where x = log (measured Berilgen et al.
0%
Ksat/predicted Ksat). The values predicted by the equations -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
of Samarasinghe et al. (1982) and of Sivappulaiah et al. log (K predicted / K measured)
(2000), based on indirect determination of the Ksat value
(using the settlement curves and the old consolidation Fig. 8 Comparing the performances of predictive equations for
plastic soils. The equations were proposed by Nishida and Nakagawa
theory) are wrong (underestimated) by about 2 orders of (1969), Samarasinghe et al. (1982), Carrier and Beckman (1984),
magnitude when compared to directly measured Ksat val- Nagaraj et al. (1991), Sivappulaiah et al. (2000), Mbonimpa et al.
ues, thus confirming statements presented in mistake No.5 (2002), Berilgen et al. (2006), and Dolinar (2009)
of ‘‘Rigid- and flexible-wall permeameters, common mis-
takes’’. The equations of Dolinar (2009) underestimate Ksat (data from Dewhurst et al. 1999), the fit with a Kozeny-
whereas the equations of Nishida and Nakagawa (1969), Carman equation is not very good for the direct and indirect
Carrier and Beckman (1984), Nagaraj et al. (1991) over- Ksat values; however, it gives the general trend (Fig. 11).
estimate Ksat (Fig. 8). The equation of Berilgen et al. Terzaghi (1922b) and Zunker (1932) already noted some
(2006), based on short duration tests using a forced con- non-linearity when plotting e3/(1 ? e) versus experimental
stant flow rate (flow pump technique), leads to severe directional Ksat data. The divergence may be due to a thin
overestimates of Ksat, thus confirming statements presented immobile water layer at the surface of clay particles
in mistake No.5 of Rigid- and flexible-wall permeameters, (Carman 1939; Singh and Wallender 2008), to non-par-
common mistakes. Finally, for natural inorganic clays, the ticipating or dead-end pores or a percolation threshold
method of Mbonimpa et al. (2002) is shown to have the (Mavko and Nur 1997). It is then possible to consider a
best predictive capacity with a ratio Kpredicted/Kmeasured reduced, or effective flow, porosity (Koponen et al. 1997),
usually between 0.5 and 2 (Fig. 8). with the risk of confusing it with the effective porosity
obtained using a non-reactive tracer test. Noting that the
Semi-log and power laws Ksat value of clay may not be exactly proportional to
e3/(1 ? e), Taylor (1948) proposed the semi-log empirical
The Kozeny-Carman equation predicts a proportionality relationship
between two scalars, Ksat and e3/(1 ? e), the equation e0  e
assuming implicitly an isotropic K tensor. However, real logðKÞ ¼ log ½K0 ðe0 Þ  : ð46Þ
CK
soils are not isotropic. Consider, for example, tests with
kaolinite and kaolin. Proportionality is observed when the Equation 46 may also be written as
e e
first invariant of the K tensor, IK1 = (Kv ? 2Kh)/3, of the  C0
K ¼ K0 ðe0 Þ10 K : ð47Þ
AW tests (Al-Tabbaa and Wood 1987) is plotted, but not
when the AW vertical and horizontal test data are plotted In Eqs. 46–47, e0 and K0(e0) are reference values and
(Fig. 9), although there is some linearity. Proportionality is CK is a permeability change index. Note that Eqs. 46–47
also not observed for the data of other vertical tests become predictive equations only if the K0(e0) value has
(ML = Michaels and Lin 1954; D = Dolinar 2009). either been predicted by some method or measured by a
However, the Kozeny-Carman equation provides a fair high quality direct laboratory test. As a result, it became
match to the vertical Ksat data of sensitive clay (Louiseville usual, for highly compressible clay, silt and peat, to plot
clay tested by Lapierre et al. (1990); and specimens of log(K) versus e and to investigate how this plot changes as
Lachenaie clay tested in the author’s laboratory as shown in the mechanical consolidation process proceeds. To
Fig. 10. In the case of intact and remoulded London Clay, characterize the decrease in K with the decrease in void
consolidated at very high pressures, to become mudstone ratio e, from an initial value e0, the ratio CK is defined as

123
420 R. P. Chapuis

1.E-08 1.E-11
AW 1987 Kv
9.E-09 AW 1987 Kh
AW 1987 IK1
8.E-09 AW, Pred. K-C
ML 1954
7.E-09 D 2009 KGa-1
D 2009 KGa-2 1.E-12

K sat (m/s)
6.E-09 65% Fines London clay
K sat (m/s)

clay into mudstone

5.E-09 Dewhurst et al. 1999
4.E-09
1.E-13
3.E-09
indirect K
2.E-09 direct K
Kaolins and kaolinites Best fit K-C, ind K
1.E-09 Different testing methods
0.E+00 1.E-14
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
3
3 e / (1+e )
e / (1+e)
Fig. 11 Example of intact and remoulded London Clay, consolidated
Fig. 9 The Kozeny-Carman equation predicts a proportionality at very high pressures to become mudstone (data from Dewhurst et al.
between Ksat and e3/(1 ? e), which is verified only for the first 1999). The fit with a Kozeny-Carman equation is inadequate for the
invariant, IK1 = (Kv ? 2Kh)/3, of the AW tests (Al-Tabbaa and directly and indirectly measured Ksat values, but it gives the general
Wood 1987), but not by the vertical tests (ML = Michaels and Lin trend
1954; D = Dolinar 2009)

1.E-08 For wide ranges, and either artificial or remoulded clays,

Louiseville clay they proposed
Lapierre et al. 1990
Lachenaie clay
Authors logðKÞ ¼ A logðeÞ þ B: ð49Þ
Equation 49 may be rewritten as a power law, with a
1.E-09
constant dimensionless power b, such as
K sat (m/s)

 b
e
K ¼ K ðe0 Þ : ð50Þ
e0
Louis. intact
1.E-10
Louis. remoulded Other relationships were proposed to link K and total
Lachenaie 1
Lachenaie 2 porosity n for rock cores, such as
Fit Louis. intact
Fit (Lachenaie 1) logðKÞ ¼ C1 þ C2 n or logðKÞ ¼ C1 þ C2 logðnÞ:
Fit (Lachenaie 2)
1.E-11 ð51Þ
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
3
e / (1+e ) The power law and other specific laws are used for rocks
such as shale, sandstone, and mudstone (e.g., Walder and
Fig. 10 Example of a fair fit between the Kozeny-Carman equation Nur 1984; Cao et al. 1986; Dutta 1987; Rajani 1988;
and the measured vertical Ksat of two sensitive clays (Louiseville clay:
Lerche 1991; Rice 1992; Neuzil 1994; Panda and Lake
data from Lapierre et al. 1990; Lachenaie clay: data from the author’s
laboratory) 1994; Nelson 1994, 2005; David et al. 1994; Dewhurst
et al. 1999; Pape et al. 2000; Civan 2001; Yang and Aplin
De 1998, 2007, 2010).
CK ¼ : ð48Þ Juárez-Badillo (1984) proposed Eq. 52 with a permea-
D logðKÞ
change coefficient PK defined in Eq. 52
For natural clay and silt, with e between 0.8 and 3, and
Ksat ¼ K0 ð1 þ eÞPK : ð52Þ
volumetric strains less than 20%, CK is close to 0.50 e0
(Tavenas et al. 1983b; Mesri et al. 1994) or 0.41 e0 (Babu Equation 52 provided a good fit for a few, but not all,
et al. 1993). For peat, which differs from clay by its very clays tested by Tavenas et al. (1983b). Then, Juárez-
high hydraulic conductivity at an initially very high e0, and Badillo (1984) questioned the heterogeneity in local void
its large volumetric strains, CK is close to 0.25 e0 (Mesri ratio and effects of seepage forces on the void network,
and Aljouni 2007). especially at low e values. In their reply, Tavenas et al.
Mesri and Olson (1971) found that Eq. 46 is acceptable (1984) stated that obtaining the K0 value in Eq. 52 was
only for a small range of void ratio and volumetric strain. problematic for two reasons: it requires a doubtful

123
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils 421

extrapolation of data down to e = 0, and its physical 1.E-07

Al-Tabbaa Wood 1987
meaning is not clear. Lachenaie clay
y = 3.01E-06x8.42E-01
Lapierre et al. 1990
For fibre assemblies which experience large variations Tavenas et al. 1983b R2 = 1.00E+00
Fit (Al-Tabbaa Wood)
of porosity during compaction and excess pore pressure in 1.E-08 Fit (Lachenaie)

measured K sat (m/s)

Fit (Lapierre)
y = 1.14E-02x1.93E+00
successive lifts (Crawford et al. 2011; Nogai and Ihara Fit (Tavenas)
R2 = 9.88E-01
1978) proposed to use
n3 1.E-09
K¼R ð53Þ
ð1  nÞb y = 7.69E-06x1.20E+00
R2 = 9.61E-01
where R and b are experimentally determined values. 1.E-10

y = 1.28E-04x1.65E+00
Regional equations R2 = 9.59E-01

1.E-11
For regional clay deposits, specific correlations can be 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02
obtained. According to Muhunthan (1991) there should be [e 3 / (1+e )] / w L2
a correlation between 1/Ss, and 1/wL. If this is a direct
proportion, this would imply that, according to the Kozeny- Fig. 12 Examples of excellent straight line correlations of the log of
Carman equation, Ksat for a given clay specimen should be the measured Ksat values with the log of the ratio [e3/(1 ? e)]/w2L
proportional to x = [e3/(1 ? e)]/w2L, and also log (Ksat)
should be linearly related to log (x). Figure 12 shows four
1.E-08
examples of straight line correlations between log (Ksat) Champlain clays
and log (x), for the kaolin of Al-Tabbaa and Wood (1987), best fit
and three Champlain Sea clay specimens tested by Tavenas
et al. (1983b), Lapierre et al. (1990) and our laboratory
measured K sat (m/s)

(Lachenaie clay). 1.E-09

Besides showing linear correlations in a log–log plot,

Fig. 12 indicates that the relationship is not unique for the
three clay samples of same origin (Champlain Sea). Thus, a = 0.00836
one may try a linear relationship between 1/Ss, and 1/wL, 1.E-10
hoping it would be unique for a clay deposit. Therefore, the
data of Ksat should be plotted against the ratio x = [e3/ y = 6.684E-06x1.339E+00
(1 ? e)]/[w-1 2 R2 = 8.133E-01
L ? a] . The parameter a can be found by
using a least square method minimization process. 1.E-11
Figure 13 shows a regional correlation for Quebec 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02
Champlain Sea clay, using data of Tavenas et al. (1983b); 3
[e / (1+e )] / [w L + a ]
-1 2

Lapierre et al. (1990); Leroueil et al. (1990) and two

Lachenaie specimens (among a few hundreds) of the
authors laboratory. The least square method gave
a = 0.00836. Many more test data from the laboratory,
which are not used in Fig. 13, confirm this trend.
Figure 14 indicates that the local correlation (Fig. 13,
Quebec Champlain Sea clays) provides a good estimate of
Ksat, usually between 1/3 and 3 times the measured value.
Compacted plastic soils with micro-fissures
Compacted plastic soils are used for liners and covers in
waste management facilities. For non-swelling clay, it is
well known that Ksat depends on void ratio e, and on the
preparation and compaction modes (Terzaghi 1922b;
Lambe 1958; Mitchell et al. 1965). Plastic soil specimens
compacted wet of optimum (in the Proctor test) may have
Ksat values 100–1,000 times lower than specimens
Fig. 13 Example of regional correlation (Quebec Champlain Sea
clays), using only the void ratio e and the liquid limit wL
compacted dry of the optimum. The Ksat value of com-
pacted non-swelling clay depends in large part on the
secondary porosity between artificially formed clay clods.
It then depends on a macrostructure resulting from re-
moulding during excavation, transport and handling
including compaction, and weathering processes such as
wetting–drying and freeze–thaw (e.g., Othman et al. 1994;
Albrecht and Benson 2001). The primary porosity of the
clay matrix, which corresponds to the fine structure at the
micron scale, has little influence on Ksat for compacted
non-swelling clay. However, swelling clays (e.g., soil-
bentonite mixtures) behave differently and can achieve
fairly low Ksat values even when compacted dry of opti-
mum (e.g., Chapuis 1990a, b, 2002; Chapuis et al. 1992;

123
422
1.E-07
Champlain clays
y=x
y = 3x
1.E-08
y = x/3
predicted K sat (m/s)
1.E-09
1.E-10
1.E-11
1.E-12
1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09
measured K sat (m/s)
Fig. 14 Example of local correlation (Champlain clays, Quebec): the
power law Equation of Fig. 13 provides a good estimate of Ksat. Many
recent test data (to be published) confirm this trend
Haug and Wong 1992). For natural clay, when the fractures
are closed to residual aperture, the Ksat value depends
mostly on the clay matrix (Sims et al. 1996).
Chapuis (2002) assumed that at the end of compaction
all water is held within the clods and none between the
clods, the secondary porosity being filled with air only.
Thus, the air volumetric fraction, or secondary porosity of
the compacted plastic soil equals nc(1-Src) where nc is the
total porosity after compaction, and Src the degree of sat-
uration after compaction. When a compacted clay speci-
men is prepared for permeability testing, its degree of
saturation is increased from Src to Srt (usually close to 100
% when high back-pressuring is used). According to sev-
eral authors, the size of laboratory compacted specimens
(about 100 or 150 mm in diameter) is large enough to
avoid the problem of scale effect that can appear with
smaller specimens (e.g., Cazaux and Didier 2002). Using a
cubic law and the data of several compacted clays (Lambe
1958; Mitchell et al. 1965), including clay liners in Que-
bec, Chapuis (2002) proposed to evaluate Ksat with
Ksat ¼ anbc ð1  Src Þb :
The values of parameters a and b in Eq. 54 can be
obtained by plotting a few high quality triaxial test data for
the compacted plastic soil (Fig. 25 in Chapuis 2002). The
Ksat value predicted using Eq. 54 is retained if higher than
10-10 m/s, and taken as 10-10 m/s if lower than that value,
unless triaxial test data for equivalent conditions are
available and may be retained.
Chapuis et al. (2006) extended this model to predict the
Ksat value of frost-damaged non-swelling plastic clay. They
also proposed to plot the compaction data on a new set of
axes, Y = (qd/qw)-1 versus X = w where qd is the soil dry
123
R. P. Chapuis
density, qw the water density and w the water content. In
the new (X, Y) frame, the curves of equal Sr are straight
lines passing through the point X = 0, Y = qw/qd = 1/Gs,
Gs being the specific gravity of solids. With the model of
Eq. 54, the curves of equal predicted values of Ksat also
appear as straight lines in the new (X, Y) frame, which
permits rapid assessment, in the field, of the quality of the
compaction. This, in turn, is helpful in predicting the
overall performance of a clay liner or cover, which is a
statistically complex problem, highly dependent on erratic
extreme Ksat values (e.g., Chapuis 1990a, b, 2002; Benson
et al. 1994; Guyonnet et al. 2003), which means that minor
defects have a huge influence on the overall performance.
1.E-08 1.E-07
This is why it is recommended to verify the performance of
any liner with a full scale leakage test (Chapuis 1990b,
2002).
Using the predictive methods
This section provides a step by step procedure helping the
reader to predict the value of Ksat for any type of soil (with
the definition of engineering or construction). The proce-
dures hereafter are more detailed and complete than those
presented by Chapuis (2008).
Gathering the soil data, selecting predictive methods
The first step is to verify that the recovered sample is of
good quality and is representative of the in situ conditions.
Several criteria can be used for quality assessment, such as
recovery percentage, verification that two layers were not
mixed during sampling, verification that the grain size
distribution curve has no zone flatter than 21.5 % per log
cycle, etc. Practical tools for sample verification can be
found in several documents (ISSMFE 1981; Chapuis
1998b; Baldwin and Gosling 2009; Chapuis and Tournier
2008).
If the sample quality is good, the grain size distribution
curve (GSDC), the Atterberg limits and the density of
solids, qs are then determined. Whenever possible, the
ð54Þ
specific surface of the soil specimen should be evaluated
using the complete GSDC for a non-plastic soil (see
‘‘Specific surface of non-plastic soils’’), and either a mea-
sured value or a predicted value in the case of a plastic soil
(see ‘‘Specific surface of plastic soils’’).
For predicting Ksat, an estimate of the in situ void ratio,
e, is needed, which can be achieved in two steps: (1) use
methods that provide the minimum and maximum values
of e, emin and emax, as a function of grain size curve
parameters and grain surface roughness (see ‘‘Range of
porosity for a single specimen’’), and then (2) assess the in
situ compactness from either the penetration resistance or a
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils
Fig. 15 Range of Ksat values as
predicted by recommended
methods
Mbonimpa et al. (natural plastic soil, no fissures)
Kozeny-Carman (Atterberg limits and complete grain size curve)
1.E-12 1.E-10
mechanical test, which will yield an estimate of e between
emin and emax.
If the soil is not plastic (sand, gravel, silt), the following
methods can be used: Hazen combined with Taylor
(‘‘Hazen (1892) coupled with Taylor (1948)’’), Terzaghi
(‘‘Terzaghi (1925)’’), Kozeny-Carman (‘‘Kozeny-Carman,
specific surface’’), Navfac (‘‘Navfac DM7 (1974)’’), Sha-
habi et al. (‘‘Shahabi et al. (1984)’’), Mbonimpa et al.
(‘‘Mbonimpa et al. (2002)’’), and Chapuis (‘‘Chapuis
(2004b)’’), but each method should be retained or not
depending on whether or not its conditions are respected. If
the soil is plastic (silt, clay) and has no secondary porosity,
two reliable methods can be used, Kozeny-Carman (‘‘Nat-
ural soils without fissures’’) and Mbonimpa et al. (‘‘Natural
soils without fissures’’). If the soil is plastic, remoulded, and
compacted, then only the method of Chapuis et al. (2006)
can be used (‘‘Compacted plastic soil with micro-fissures’’).
Figure 15 shows the ranges of predicted Ksat values for
each method. It must be noted that predictive methods in
this paper are for water at 20C, and therefore a tempera-
ture correction must be made to account for the in situ
water temperature (see ‘‘Correction for groundwater
temperature’’).
Assuming that step 1 has been successful, the four nest
sub-sections present examples of predictions for specimens
of sand, silty sand, clay without fissures, and compacted
clay.
Example for silty sand, no plasticity
The specific surface SS of non-plastic soil specimens is
assessed using the method of Chapuis and Légaré (1992) as
explained in ‘‘Specific surface of non-plastic soils’’. An
example for a silty sand specimen was provided in Table 2
and is used hereafter. The GSDC of the silty sand appears
in Fig. 16, and provides the following values:
d10 = 0.0091 mm, d5 = 0.0039 mm, d60 = 0.285 mm,
CU = 31.5 and SS = 120.57 m2/kg (Table 2). The Ksat
value is sought for a porosity n = 0.231 or void ratio
e = 0.300, which corresponds to a dense condition.
423
Hazen-Taylor (sand)
Chapuis (2004) for non plastic natural soils
1.E-08 1.E-06 1.E-04 1.E-02 1.E+00
range of predicted K values (cm/s)
Equation 9 (Hazen 1892) predicts Ksat = 1.23 9 10-4
cm/s but none of its four conditions is respected (NO for
sand, NO for loose, NO for CU and NO for d10). Combining
Hazen with Taylor (Eq. 13) permits the respect of only 1
condition (any e value) among 4. Using Eqs. 2 and 3, and a
roundness factor RF of 0.35 (sub-angular to sub-rounded)
for the solid grains, it is found that emax = 0.409 and
emin = 0.215. Equation 13 then predicts Ksat = 5.3 9 10-5
cm/s. This prediction is doubtful because the soil is not
sand as required.
Equation 14 (Terzaghi 1925), with a factor C0 of 4.6
predicts Ksat = 5.9 9 10-6 cm/s, a doubtful prediction
because the soil is not sand as required.
Equation 17 for the method of Kozeny-Carman (Cha-
puis and Aubertin 2003) is more reliable because the silty
sand is non-plastic and its complete GSDC is known. It
predicts Ksat = 6.0 9 10-5 cm/s.
Equation 18 for the method of Navfac DM7 (1974)
predicts Ksat = 6.6 9 10-7 cm/s but none of its five con-
ditions is respected (NO for sand or sand-and-gravel, NO
for CU, NO for d10, NO for e, and NO for the ratio d10/d5).
This prediction is thus doubtful.
Equation 19 (Shahabi et al. (1984) predicts
Ksat = 1.1 9 10-4 cm/s but none of its four conditions is
respected (NO for sand, NO for CU, NO for d10, and NO for
e). This prediction is thus doubtful.
Equation 20 (Mbonimpa et al. 2002), which has no
condition, predicts Ksat = 4.7 9 10-4 cm/s.
Equation 21 (Chapuis 2004b), predicts Ksat = 7.5 9
10-5 cm/s and all of its three conditions are respected (YES
for natural; soil, YES for d10, and YES for e). Therefore,
this prediction is reliable.
Finally, all predictions appear in Fig. 17, for void ratios
between 0.25 and 0.40, using small symbols when the
conditions are not met or when there is no condition, and
large symbols when the conditions are met. It may be seen
that the two methods for which the conditions are met
predict values close to each other at any e value: their range
should be retained. Other predictions are scattered around
the only two reliable methods for this silty sand, except the
123
424 R. P. Chapuis

100% 0.50
Hazen Hazen-Taylor
90% Terzaghi Kozeny-Carman
0.45 Navfac DM7 Shahabi et al.
80% Mbonimpa et al. Chapuis

void ratio e (m 3/m 3)

passing solid mass

70% 0.40
60%
0.35
50%

40%
0.30
30%
silty sand
20% 0.25
sand
10%
0.20
0% 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
predicted K sat (cm/s)
grain size, d (mm)
Fig. 17 Results of the predictions for the silty sand specimen
Fig. 16 Grain size distribution curves for the silty sand and the sand
used in examples

Table 4 Estimating the specific surface Ss of a sand specimen

method of Hazen-Taylor, which provides estimates close to Specific surface (m2/kg)

the two reliable methods, even if three of its four condi- Grain size % passing Gs Ss = 6/dqs xss
tions are not met. 2.740
d (mm) 1 Diff. X m2/kg m2/kg
Example for a sand specimen 150.00 100.00
100.00 100.00 0.000 0.02 0.00
The specific surface SS of the sand specimen is assessed in
50.00 100.00 0.000 0.04 0.00
Table 4. Its GSDC appears in Fig. 16. In this case, as often
28.00 100.00 0.000 0.08 0.00
happens, there were only sieving data and no sedimentation
20.00 100.00 0.000 0.11 0.00
data. Thus, even if the fines content is 9.5%, the estimated
14.00 100.00 0.000 0.16 0.00
value of SS may be inaccurate. The sand GSDC provides
10.00 100.00 0.000 0.22 0.00
the following values: d10 = 0.087 mm, d5 = 0.066 mm,
5.00 100.00 0.000 0.44 0.00
d60 = 0.281 mm, CU = 3.2 and SS = 17.37 m2/kg. The
2.50 100.00 0.000 0.88 0.00
Ksat value is sought for a porosity n = 0.286 or void ratio
1.25 98.00 0.020 1.75 0.04
e = 0.400, which corresponds to a very dense condition.
0.63 90.00 0.080 3.48 0.28
Equation 9 (‘‘Hazen (1892) coupled with Taylor (1948)’’,
0.315 65.00 0.250 6.95 1.74
Eq. 9) predicts Ksat = 1.1 9 10-2 cm/s. Only two of its four
0.160 33.00 0.320 13.69 4.38
conditions are respected (YES for sand, NO for loose, YES
for CU and NO for d10). Combining Hazen with Taylor 0.080 9.50 0.235 27.37 6.43
(Eq. 13) permits the respect of three conditions (now YES for 4.62E-02 0.095 47.41 4.50
any e) among four. Using Eqs 2 and 3, and a roundness factor Specific surface Ss Sum 17.37
RF of 0.35 (sub-angular to sub-rounded) for the grains, it is
found that emax = 0.672 and emin = 0.362. Equation 13 then
predicts Ksat = 2.8 9 10-3 cm/s. Equation 19 (Shahabi et al. 1984) predicts Ksat =
Equation 14 (‘‘Terzaghi (1925)’’, Eq. 14), with a factor 1.5 9 10-3 cm/s. Two of its four conditions are respected
C0 of 4.6 predicts Ksat = 1.7 9 10-3 cm/s, the only (YES for sand, YES for CU, NO for d10, and YES for e).
requirement (sand) being respected. Equation 20 (Mbonimpa et al. (2002), which has no
Equation 17 for the method of Kozeny-Carman (Cha- condition, predicts Ksat = 7.99 9 10-2 cm/s.
puis and Aubertin 2003) predicts Ksat = 6.4 9 10-3 cm/s. Equation 21 (Chapuis 2004b) predicts Ksat = 4.8 9 10-3
Equation 18 for the method of Navfac DM7 (1974) cm/s. All of its three conditions are respected (YES for nat-
predicts Ksat = 9.9 9 10-4 cm/s. Four of its five condi- ural; soil, YES for d10, and YES for e).
tions are respected (YES for sand, YES for CU, NO for d10, Finally, all predictions appear in Fig. 18, for void ratios
YES for e, and YES for the ratio d10/d5). between 0.40 and 0.65, using small symbols when all the

123
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils 425

0.70 1.4

0.65 overestimate
1.3
0.60

void ratio e (m 3/m 3)

void ratio e (m /m )
3

0.55
1.2
Kozeny-Carman
3

0.50 no condition
Berilgen et al. 2006
0.45 1.1 Carrier Beckman 1984
4/5 Nishida Nakagawa 1970
0.40
1.0 Samarasinghe et al. 1982
0.35 3/4 2/4 Nagaraj et al. 1994
3/3
0.30 Hazen Hazen-Taylor Dolinar 2009
Terzaghi Kozeny-Carman 0.9 Sivappulaiah et al. 2000
0.25 Navfac DM7 Shahabi et al.
Mbonimpa et al. Chapuis Mbonimpa et al. 2002
0.20 0.8
1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07
predicted K sat (cm/s) predicted K sat (cm/s)

Fig. 18 Results of the predictions for the sand specimen. (The Fig. 19 Predicted Ksat values for a specimen of natural inorganic clay
fraction 4/5 means that 4 of the 5 conditions to use this method were
respected)

between 0.5 and 2. In Fig. 19, the two reliable methods

conditions are not met or when there is no condition, and
large symbols when all conditions are met. There is only
one method for which all conditions are met. Other pre-
dictions are scattered around those of this method for this
sand, except again the methods of Hazen-Taylor and
Kozeny-Carman that provide close estimates.
In short, according to the examples for silty sand and
sand, and as previously illustrated by Figs. 4, 6 and 7, the
most reliable predictive methods for non-plastic soils are
those of Hazen (1892) coupled with Taylor (1948) for
coarse soils, and Kozeny-Carman (Chapuis and Aubertin
2003) and Chapuis (2004b) for coarse or fine non-plastic
soils. Note that the Kozeny-Carman method worked for
this case, but in several other cases it may not work well
because the grain size distribution of fines is unknown and
thus, the specific surface may be poorly assessed.
Example for in situ clay, no fissures
The plastic soil specimen (inorganic natural clay) has the
following in situ properties: w = 48%, wP = 24%,
wL = 52%, Gs = 2.76 and e = 1.325. All methods previ-
ously considered in Figs. 7 and 8 have been used for this
clay specimen. Its specific surface was estimated using
Eq. 22.
All predictions appear in Fig. 19 and are spread over
four to five orders of magnitude. The reasons for poor
performances were presented previously when comparing
the performances. The Kozeny-Carman equation has a
good predictive capacity for natural inorganic clay (Fig. 7),
whereas the method of Mbonimpa et al. (2002) has the best
predictive capacity of the other methods (Fig. 8). These
two methods yield a ratio Kpredicted/Kmeasured usually
provide estimates which are relatively close to each other,
as anticipated, and a predicted value in the order of
3 9 10-10 m/s, which should be retained for this clay
specimen.
To summarize how to use the predictive methods for
non-fissured soils (either non-plastic or plastic), Fig. 20
provides a flow chart to identify appropriate choices of
predictive methods.
Example for compacted (fissured) clay
For detailed examples of compacted clay liners, including
prediction of their total leakage rate, the reader may refer to
Chapuis (2002, his Figs. 34–37 and the corresponding
text). The predictive method can take advantage of all field
data for water content and dry density, as provided for
example by nuclear probes (Chapuis 2002; Chapuis et al.
2006).
To conclude this section, it is important to consider
several methods for predicting the value of Ksat. These
methods depend on the soil type. Further, they predict a
vertical Kv value at 20 C. Consequently, two corrections
are needed, first for in situ water temperature, and second
for field anisotropy. The two corrections are presented in
the two next sections.
Correction for groundwater temperature
The predicted K value at 20 C must be corrected for in situ
groundwater temperature using Eq. 55 with the relative
kinematic viscosity correction of either Eq. 56 or Eq. 57,
both being very accurate between 1 and 50 C:

123
426 R. P. Chapuis

Fig. 20 Flow chart to select

predictive methods that are
Check first: sample quality and representativity, mix or not, inorganic
usually the most reliable soil, no fissures.
Data to collect before evaluating K sat:
GSDC (sieving, hydrometer), porosity n or void ratio e , Atterberg limits
(w L, w P, and I P)

I P = 0 (non-plastic soil) I P > 0 (plastic soil)

Hydrometer data?

No Yes

Check conditions
calculate S S
for methods

Methods of Hazen Method of Kozeny-

Methods of Kozeny-
(1892) coupled Carman (Chapuis
Carman (Chapuis and
with Taylor (1948), and Aubertin
Aubertin 2003), and of
and Chapuis 2003) and
Mbonimpa et al. (2002)
(2004b) Chapuis (2004b)

m ð20  CÞ 1.8
KðT  CÞ ¼ Kð 20  CÞ ð55Þ experim. data
m ðTÞ Eq. 55 (Dorsey)
1.6
m ð20  CÞ 1:37023ðT20Þþ0:000836ðT20Þ2 Eq. 56 (VTF)
¼ 10 109þT ð56Þ 1.4
m ðTÞ
relative viscosity

 
m ð20  CÞ 509:53 509:53
¼ exp  :
m ðTÞ 20 þ 123:15 T þ 123:15
In Eqs. 55 to 57, m is the kinematic viscosity of water,
and T is in degrees Celsius. Equation 56 was provided by
Dorsey (1968), whereas Eq. 57 is known as the VTF
(Vogel-Tammann-Fulcher) equation. The curves of
Eqs. 56 and 57 fit experimental data (Fig. 21) with
negligible error. These temperature corrections, when
used for fresh groundwater, do not take into account the
influence of small salt content on water viscosity. In
Eq. 55, the correction for water density is not taken into
account because it can be neglected in comparison with the
correction for water temperature.
Correction for anisotropy
The correction for anisotropy is only that for homogenous
soils. Natural, even homogenous, soils are known to
develop some anisotropic permeability during deposition
and densification (e.g., Kenney and Chan 1973; Chan and
Kenney 1973; Larsson 1981; Olson and Daniel 1981;
Tavenas et al. 1983b; Al-Tabbaa and Wood 1987; Chapuis
and Gill 1989; Leroueil et al. 1990; Bolton et al. 2000;
Scholes et al. 2007).
1.2
ð57Þ
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50
temperature, T (oC)
Fig. 21 Relative viscosity of pure water versus temperature
In the field, however, hydraulic anisotropy of sediments
is due mainly to their stratification, where the maximum
and minimum values of K, Kmin and Kmax, can be studied as
functions of the thickness and K values of individual layers
(e.g., Terzaghi 1943). This anisotropy of stratified sedi-
ments (second level of anisotropy) should be considered
only after having assessed the K values for individual
layers and the effects of both in situ temperature and
anisotropy for each individual layer. The anisotropy
resulting from stratification, and/or heterogeneity, falls
outside the scope of this paper. It may be studied using
several techniques and has many implications for transport
phenomena (e.g., Schulze-Makuch et al. 1999; Gloaguen

123
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils
et al. 2001; Jackson 2003; De Marsily et al. 2005; Morin
et al. 2010; Dubreuil-Boisclair et al. 2011).
For homogenous clays and rocks samples, which can be
either cut or cored to obtain class 1 specimens for labora-
tory tests in any direction, many values of the anisotropy
ratio, rk = Kmax/Kmin, were obtained. However, the earliest
data on hydraulic anisotropy were ambiguous, due pri-
marily to incorrectly designed and interpreted tests (Cha-
puis and Gill 1989). It is currently known that
homogeneous sands (or clays) deposited in water, and
influenced later only by gravity, present the same rela-
tionship between rk and a density index Ie: they are
hydraulically isotropic at their highest void ratio; their rk
value increases up to about 2 when the void ratio e is
decreased by densification involving only gravity. In
addition, the hydraulic anisotropy of sandstone was found
to be in continuity with that of sand, increasing with den-
sification (Chapuis and Gill 1989).
Note also that, for sand, the rk values are higher than 1.0
for static compaction and lower than 1.0 for dynamic
compaction, showing that the rk value of sand depends on
the preparation mode or stress history: this should be
considered for embankment construction. However, even if
the small rk values differed for static and dynamic com-
pactions, the first invariant of the hydraulic conductivity
tensor, I1K, was found to be a function of the void ratio
only, regardless of the densification process (Chapuis et al.
1989b). These results also confirmed that the high values of
rk as obtained using field permeability tests are due to
stratification.
Discussion and conclusion
The paper has examined and assessed many methods for
predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils. The
soil definition is that of engineering, not that of soil science
and agriculture, which corresponds to ‘‘top soil’’ in engi-
neering. Most predictive methods were calibrated using
laboratory permeability tests performed on either disturbed
or intact specimens for which the test conditions were
either measured or assumed to be known.
Therefore, the quality of recovered samples and the
quality of tested specimens is essential. Then, the quality of
predictive equations depends highly on the quality of the
data obtained with the laboratory tests. Without examining
all quality issues, the paper explains the 14 most important
mistakes for tests in rigid-wall or flexible-wall permeam-
eters, which are still present in a few recent papers.
We have then explained the minimal requirements of a
reliable predictive method. These have been used after-
wards to select, among 45 predictive methods, which ones
have some potential. It may be expected that a given
427
equation may work well (it gives a good fit) for the few
tests it was derived for, those tests being biased by the
same experimental mistakes. However, it will not work for
other tests, which include different mistakes or none.
Working well for a predictive equation may simply mean
that there is some consistency in the data and their errors,
but working well for a few tests does not mean that the
predictive method is reliable.
Here, the data of hundreds of excellent quality tests,
with none of the 14 mistakes, have been used to assess the
predictive methods with some a priori potential. The tests
were performed on homogenous, remoulded or intact, soil
specimens, which were 100 % saturated using de-aired
water and either a vacuum or back-pressure technique, and
which were not prone to internal erosion. Aquifer soils
were tested in rigid-wall permeameters equipped with lat-
eral manometers. Aquitard soils were tested in flexible-wall
permeameters (triaxial cells) or œdometer cells but using
only direct tests performed between two consolidation
steps.
The relative performance of predictive methods is
assessed and presented in graphs. Three methods are found
to work fairly well for non-plastic soils, two for plastic
soils without fissures, and one for compacted plastic soils
used for liners and covers. In the case of plastic soils
without fissures, it seems also that regional correlations
may have a good potential for predicting the Ksat values, as
shown with the example of Champlain Sea clays.
To obtain realistic input data to be used in numerical
models of saturated and unsaturated seepage conditions, it
is quite important to first evaluate the quality of the sample,
and then to use several methods to predict Ksat, as shown
by a few examples. However, since most predictive
methods were calibrated with laboratory test data at 20 C,
a temperature correction must be made for Ksat values
under field conditions. The effects of temperature and
intrinsic anisotropy within the homogeneous specimen
have been discussed, but not larger scale anisotropy due to
stratification within aquifers and aquitards. Thus, the pre-
dicted Ksat values must be used with caution and compared
with field test K values to detect any scale effect if any
(Chapuis et al. 2005).
Recent years have seen the development of predictive
models based on specific properties of certain materials
(e.g., Aubertin et al. 1996; Boadu 2000; D’Andrea 2001;
Bussière 2007; Shou et al. 2011; Yazdchi et al. 2011),
fractals and assumptions on the pores (e.g., Pape et al.
1999, 2000; Costa 2006; Peng and Boming 2008; Göktepe
and Sezer 2010), network models (e.g., Bryant et al. 1993;
Schaap et al. 1998; Akbulut 2005; Valdes-Pareda et al.
2009; Erzin et al. 2009), and numerical tools, (e.g., Don-
ohue and Wensrich 2008; Vidal et al. 2009; Sun et al. 2010;
Shahnazari and Vahabikashi 2011; Ghassemi and Pak
123
428
2011a, b). These models are not presented in the paper.
Models based on fractals, networks and numerical tools
usually involve simplified or theoretical geometries (either
of solids or of pores), and can provide useful insights into
the physics of seepage at the continuum scale. However, to
establish reliable models based either on such methods or
on physical permeability tests, reliable laboratory data are
still needed.
Finally, it is hoped that future models will help to
remove inherent limitations of all predictive methods,
which use only scalar parameters to predict a directional
K value, whereas K is a tensor (Ferrandon 1948). For
example, many models explicitly use the total porosity and
implicitly some average tortuosity, although the pore space
has directional properties, and tortuosity is direction
dependent. Since intrinsic anisotropy also depends upon
stress history and compaction conditions, physically more
correct predictive methods should be based on vectors or
tensors, not on scalars, unless when calibrated using the
first invariant of the K tensor (Chapuis et al. 1989b). This is
not the case presently.
Acknowledgments This paper is a result of a research program
sponsored by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of
Canada to improve the reliability of permeability and aquifer tests.
The author thanks A. Gatien, M. Benabdallah, F. Réginensi, M. Pérez,
and many summer students for their help in testing soil specimens, A.
Yelon, S. Weber, and F. Duhaime for their help in checking the
manuscript and the proofs.
References
Ag A, Silva A (1998) Consolidation and permeability behavior of
high porosity seabed sediments. Geotech Testing J 21(3):
185–194
Akbulut S (2005) Artificial neural networks for predicting the
hydraulic conductivity of coarse-grained soils. Eurasian Soil
Sci 38(4):392–398
Albrecht BA, Benson CH (2001) Effect of desiccation on compacted
natural clays. J Geotech Geoenv Eng 127(1):67–75
Al-Tabbaa A, Wood DM (1987) Some measurements of the
permeability of kaolin. Géotechnique 37(4):499–503
Alyamani MS, Sen Z (1993) Determination of hydraulic conductivity
from grain-size distribution curves. Ground Water 31(4):
551–555
Arnepalli DN, Shanthakumar S, Hanumantha Rao B, Singh DN
(2008) Comparison of methods for determining specific-surface
area of fine-grained soils. Geotech Geol Eng 26:121–132
Arya LM, Leij FJ, Shouse PJ, van Genuchten MT (1999) Relationship
between the hydraulic conductivity function and the particle-size
distribution. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:1063–1070
Arya LM, Heitman JL, Thapa BB, Bowman DC (2010) Predicting
saturated hydraulic conductivity of golf course sands from
particle-size distribution. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74(1):33–37
ASTM (2011a) Standard D2434—Permeability of granular soils
(Constant Head). In: ASTM annual CDs of standards, vol 04.08,
West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM (2011b) Standard D5856—Measurement of hydraulic con-
ductivity of porous material using a rigid-wall compaction-mold
123
R. P. Chapuis
permeameter. In: ASTM Annual CDs of Standards, vol 04.08,
West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM (2011c) Standard D5084—Measurement of hydraulic con-
ductivity of saturated porous materials using a flexible wall
permeameter. In: ASTM annual CDs of standards, vol 04.08,
West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM (2011d) Standard D422: Standard Test Method for Particle-
Size Analysis of Soils. In: ASTM Annual CDs of Standards, vol
04.08, West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM (2011e) Standard D4253—Maximum index density and unit
weight of soils using a vibratory table. In: ASTM annual CDs of
standards, vol 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM (2011f) Standard D4254—Minimum Index Density and unit
weight of soils and calculation of relative density. In: ASTM
annual CDs of standards, vol 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA
Aubertin M, Bussière B, Chapuis RP (1996) Hydraulic conductivity
of homogenized tailings from hard rock mines. Can Geotech J
33:470–482
Aubertin M, Chapuis RP, Mbonimpa M (2005) Goodbye Hazen;
Hello, Kozeny-Carman: discussion. ASCE J Geotech Geoenvi-
ron Eng 131(8):1056–1057
Babu GL, Pandian NS, Nagaraj TS (1993) A re-examination of the
permeability index of clays. Can Geotech J 30:187–191
Baldwin M, Gosling D (2009) BS EN ISO 22475-1: implications for
geotechnical sampling in the UK. Ground Eng, August pp 28–31
Bandini P, Shathiskumar S (2009) Effects of silt content and void
ratio on the saturated hydraulic conductivity and compressibility
of sand-silt mixtures. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
135(12):1976–1980
Barr DW (2001) Coefficient of permeability determined by measur-
able parameters. Ground Water 39(3):356–361
Barrande M, Bouchet R, Denoyel R (2007) Tortuosity of porous
particles. Anal Chem 79(23):9115–9121
Bear J (1972) Dynamics of fluids in porous media. Elsevier, New York
Beard DC, Weyl PK (1973) Influence of texture on porosity and
permeability of unconsolidated sand. AAPG Bulletin 57(2):
349–369
Benabdallah EM, Chapuis RP (2007) Studying the influence of scale
effects when computing the hydraulic conductivity of a
Champlain clay. In: Proceedings of 60th Can Geotech Conf,
Ottawa, pp 425–432
Benson CH, Boutwell GP (2000) Compaction conditions and scale-
dependent hydraulic conductivity of compacted clay liners.
ASTM STP 1384:254–273
Benson CH, Zhai H, Wang X (1994) Estimating hydraulic conduc-
tivity of compacted clay liners. ASCE J Geotech Eng 120(2):
366–387
Berilgen SA, Berilgen MM, Ozaydin IK (2006) Compression and
permeability relationships in high water content clays. Appl Clay
Sci 31:249–261
Beyer W (1964) Zur Bestimmung der Wasserdurchlässigkeit von
Saden und Kiesen, aus der Kornverteilungskurve. Z Wasserwirt-
Wassertech 14:165–168 (in German)
Bishop AW (1948) A new sampling tool for use in cohesionless sands
below ground water level. Géotechnique 1(1):125–131
Black DK, Lee KL (1973) Saturating laboratory samples by back-
pressure. ASCE J Geotech Eng Div 99(1):75–93
Boadu FK (2000) Hydraulic conductivity of soils from grain-size
distribution: new models. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
126(8):739–746
Bolton AJ (2000) Some measurements of permeability and effective
stress on a heterogeneous soil mixture: implications for recovery
of inelastic strains. Eng Geology 57:95–104
Bolton AJ, Maltman AJ, Fisher Q (2000) Anisotropic permeability
and bimodal pore-size distributions of fine-grained marine
sediments. Mar Pet Geol 17:657–672
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils
Brooks RH, Corey AT (1964) Hydraulic properties of porous media.
Hydrology Paper 3, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
Brunauer S, Emmett PH, Teller E (1938) Adsorption of gases in
multi-molecular layers. J Am Chem Soc 60:309–319
Bryant SL, Mellor DW, Cade CA (1993) Physically representative
network models of transport in porous media. AIChE J
39:387–396
Bussière B (2007) Colloquium 2004: hydrogeotechnical properties of
hard rock tailings from metal mines and emerging geoenviron-
mental disposal approaches. Can Geotech J 44(9):1019–1052
Camapum de Carvalho J, Domaschuk L, Mieussens C (1986)
Discussion of new procedure for saturating sand specimens.
J Geotech Engng 112(1):101–102
Cao S, Glezen WH, Lerche I (1986) Fluid flow, hydrocarbon generation
and migration: a quantitative model of dynamical evolution in
sedimentary basins. Proc Offshore Technol Conf 2:267–276
Carman PC (1937) Fluid flow through granular beds. Trans Inst Chem
Eng London 15:150–166
Carman PC (1938a) Fundamental principles of industrial filtration (A
critical review of present knowledge). Trans Inst Chem Eng
London 16:168–188
Carman PC (1938b) Determination of the specific surface of powders
I. Trans J Soc Chem Ind 57:225–234
Carman PC (1939) Permeability of saturated sands, soils and clays.
J Agric Science 29:263–273
Carman PC (1956) Flow of gases through porous media. Butter-
worths, London
Carrier WD (1986) Consolidation parameters derived from index
tests. Géotechnique 36(2):291–292
Carrier WD (2003) Goodbye, Hazen, Hello, Kozeny-Carman. ASCE J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129:1054–1056
Carrier WD, Beckman JF (1984) Correlations between index tests and
the properties of remoulded clays. Géotechnique 34(2):211–228
Cazaux D, Didier G (2002) Comparison between various field and
laboratory measurements of the hydraulic conductivity of three
clay liners. ASTM STP1415: 3–24
Cerato AB (2001) Influence of specific surface area on geotechnical
characteristics of fine-grained soils. MSc thesis, Civil Eng, Univ
Massachusetts, Amherst
Cerato AB, Lutenegger AJ (2002) Determination of surface area of
fine-grained soils by the ethylene glycol monoethyl ether
(EGME) method. Geotech Testing J 25:1–7
Chan HT, Kenney TC (1973) Laboratory investigation of permeabil-
ity ratio of New Liskeard varved clay. Can Geotech J
10:453–472
Chapuis RP (1990a) Sand-bentonite liners: predicting permeability
from laboratory tests. Can Geotech J 27(1):47–57
Chapuis RP (1990b) Sand-bentonite liners: field control methods. Can
Geotech J 27(2):216–223
Chapuis RP (1992) Similarity of internal stability criteria for granular
soils. Can Geotech J 29:711–713
Chapuis RP (1995) Controlling the quality of groundwater parame-
ters: some examples. Can Geotech J 32:72–177
Chapuis RP (1998a) Overdamped slug tests in monitoring wells:
review of interpretation methods with mathematical, physical,
and numerical analysis of storativity influence. Can Geotech J
35(5):697–719
Chapuis RP (1998b) Poor borehole sampling and consequences for
permeability evaluation. In: Proceedings of 8th Congress IAEG,
Vancouver, Balkema, vol 1, pp 417–423
Chapuis RP (1999) Borehole variable-head permeability tests in
compacted clay liners and covers. Can Geotech J 36(1):39–51
Chapuis RP (2001) Extracting piezometric level and hydraulic
conductivity from tests in driven flush-joint casings. Geotech
Test J 24(2):209–219
429
Chapuis RP (2002) The 2000 R.M. Hardy Lecture: Full-scale
hydraulic performance of soil–bentonite and compacted clay
liners. Can Geotech J 39:417–439
Chapuis RP (2004a) Permeability tests in rigid-wall permeameters:
determining the degree of saturation, its evolution and influence
on test results. Geotech Test J 27(3):304–313
Chapuis RP (2004b) Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity
of sand and gravel using effective diameter and void ratio. Can
Geotech J 41(5):787–795
Chapuis RP (2007) Professor, I have forgotten to measure an
elevation for my falling-head permeability test. Geotechnical
News 25(2):38–42
Chapuis RP (2008) Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of
natural soils. Geotechnical News 26(2):47–50
Chapuis RP (2009) Interpreting slug tests with large data sets.
Geotech Test J 32(2):139–146
Chapuis RP (2010) Using a leaky swimming pool for a huge falling-
head permeability test. Engng Geology 114(1–2):65–70
Chapuis RP (2012) Estimating the in situ porosity of sandy soils
sampled in boreholes. Engng Geology (submitted)
Chapuis RP, Aubertin M (2003) On the use of the Kozeny-Carman’s
equation to predict the hydraulic conductivity of a soil. Can
Geotech J 40(3):616–628
Chapuis RP, Aubertin M (2004) On the use of the Kozeny-Carman’s
equation to predict the hydraulic conductivity of a soil: Reply.
Can Geotech J 41(5):994–996
Chapuis RP, Aubertin M (2010) Influence of relative compaction on
the hydraulic conductivity of completely decomposed granite in
Hong Kong: Discussion. Can Geotech J 47(6):704–707
Chapuis RP, Chenaf D (2002) Slug tests in a confined aquifer:
experimental results in a large soil tank and numerical model-
ling. Can Geotech J 39(1):14–21
Chapuis RP, Chenaf D (2003) Variable-head permeability tests in
driven flush-joint casings: Physical and numerical modeling.
Geotech Test J 26(3):245–256
Chapuis RP, Gill DE (1989) Hydraulic anisotropy of homogeneous
soils and rocks: influence of the densification process. Bull Int
Assoc Eng Geol 39:75–86
Chapuis RP, Légaré PP (1992) A simple method for determining the
surface area of fine aggregates and fillers in bituminous mixtures.
In Effects of Aggregates and Mineral Fillers on Asphalt Mixture
Performance. ASTM STP 1147:177–186
Chapuis RP, Sabourin L (1989) The effects of installation of
piezometers and wells on groundwater characteristics and
measurements. Can Geotech J 26(4):604–613
Chapuis, RP, Tournier JP (2006) Simple graphical methods to assess
the risk of internal erosion. In: Proceedings of ICOLD Barcelona
2006, Question 86, Balkema, pp 319–335
Chapuis RP, Tournier JP (2008) Assessing the quality of split spoon
samples. Geotech News 26(3):46–48
Chapuis RP, Paré JJ, Lavallée JG (1981) Essais de perméabilité à
niveau variable. In: Proceedings of 10th ICSMFE, Stockholm,
Vol 1, pp 401–406
Chapuis RP, Baass K, Davenne L (1989a) Granular soils in rigid-wall
permeameters: method for determining the degree of saturation.
Can Geotech J 26:71–79
Chapuis RP, Gill DE, Baass K (1989b) Laboratory permeability tests
on sand: Influence of the compaction method on anisotropy. Can
Geotech J 26:614–622
Chapuis RP, Lavoie J, Girard D (1992) Design, construction,
performance and repairs of the soil-bentonite liners of two
lagoons. Can Geotech J 29(5):638–649
Chapuis RP, Contant A, Baass KA (1996) Migration of fines in
0–20 mm crushed base during placement, compaction, and
seepage under laboratory conditions. Can Geotech J 33:168–176
123
430
Chapuis RP, Dallaire V, Marcotte D, Chouteau M, Acevedo N,
Gagnon F (2005) Evaluating the hydraulic conductivity at three
different scales within an unconfined aquifer at Lachenaie,
Quebec. Can Geotech J 42(4):1212–1220
Chapuis RP, Mbonimpa M, Dagenais AM, Aubertin M (2006) A
linear graphical method to predict the effect of compaction on
the hydraulic conductivity of clay liners and covers. Bull Eng
Geol Env 65(1):93–98
Chapuis RP, Masse I, Madinier B, Aubertin M (2007) A drainage
column test for determining unsaturated properties of coarse
materials. Geotech Testing J 30(2):83–89
Christiansen JE (1944) Effect of entrapped air upon the permeability
of soils. Soil Sci 58(5):355–365
Civan F (2001) Scale effect on porosity and permeability: kinetics,
model and correlation. AIChE J 47(2):271–287
Costa A (2006) Permeability-porosity relationship: a re-examination
of the Kozeny-Carman equation based on a fractal pore-space
geometry assumption. Geophys Res Lett 33(2) doi:10.1029/
2005GL025134
Côté J, Fillion MH, Konrad JM (2011) Intrinsic permeability of
materials ranging from sand to rock-fill using natural convection
tests. Can Geotech J 48(5):679–690
Craeger WP, Justin JD, Hinds J (1947) Engineering for dams, Vol 2,
p 646, Wiley & Sons, New York
Crawford R, Jones GF, You L, Wu Q (2011) Compression-dependent
permeability measurement for random soft porous media and its
implication for lift generation. Chem Eng Sci 66(3):294–302
Cronican AE, Gribb MM (2004) Hydraulic conductivity prediction
for sandy soils. Ground Water 42(3):459–464
Cyr RY, Chiasson P (1999) Modeling subsoil drainage systems for
urban roadways. Can Geotech J 26:799–809
D’Andrea R (2001) Hydraulic conductivity of soils from grain-size
distribution: new models: discussion. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
127(10):899
Dallavale JM (1948) Micromeritics—the technology of fine particles,
2nd edn. Pitman, New-York
Daniel DE (1994) State-of-the art: laboratory hydraulic conductivity
test for saturated soil. In: Daniel DE, Trautwein SJ (eds)
Hydraulic conductivity and waste contaminant transport in soil,
Vol 1142 pp 30–78, ASTM STP
Daniel DE, Trautwein SJ, Boynton SS, Foreman DE (1984)
Permeability testing with flexible-wall permeameters. Geotech
Testing J 7(3):113–122
Darcy H (1856) Les fontaines publiques de la ville de Dijon. Victor
Dalmont, Paris
Dassargues A, Biver P, Monjoie A (1991) Geotechnical properties of
the Quaternary sediments in Shanghai. Eng Geol 31(1):71–90
David C, Wong TF, Zhu WL, Zhang J (1994) Laboratory measure-
ments of compaction-induced permeability change in porous
rocks: implications for the generation and maintenance of pore
pressure excess in the crust. Pure Appl Geophys 143(1–3):425–
456
Davis SN (1989) Correlations of permeability and grain size:
discussion. Ground Water 28(1):116
De Bruyn CMA, Collins LF, Williams AAB (1957) The specific
surface, water affinity, and potential expansiveness of clays.
Clay Mineralogy Bull 3:120–128
De Marsily G, Delay F, Goncalves J, Renard P, Teles V, Violette S
(2005) Dealing with spatial heterogeneity. Hydrol J 13(1):161–
183
DeJong JT, Christoph GG (2009) Influence of particle properties and
initial specimen state on one-dimensional compression and
hydraulic conductivity. J Geotech Geoenv Eng 135(3):449–454
Delage P, Lefebvre G (1984) Study of the structure of a sensitive
Champlain clay and its evolution during consolidation. Can
Geotech J 21:21–35
123
R. P. Chapuis
Delage P, Audiguier M, Cui YJ, Howat MD (1996) Microstructure of
a compacted silt. Can Geotech J 33:150–158
Delage P, Sultan N, Cui YJ (2000) On the thermal consolidation of
Boom clay. Can Geotech J 37:343–354
Dewhurst DN, Aplin AC, Sarda JP (1999) Influence of clay fraction
on pore-scale properties and hydraulic conductivity of experi-
mentally compacted mudstones. J of Geophys Res 104(B12):
29261–29274
Dolinar B (2009) Predicting the hydraulic conductivity of saturated
clays using plasticity-value correlations. Appl Clay Sci 45:90–94
Dolinar B, Trauner L (2004) Liquid limit and specific surface of clay
particles. Geotech Test J 27(6):580–584
Dolinar B, Mišič M, Trauner L (2007) Correlation between surface
area and Atterberg limits of fine-grained soils. Clays Clay Miner
55(5):519–523
Donohue TJ, Wensrich CM (2008) The prediction of permeability
with the aid of computer simulations. Part Sci Technol
26:97–108
Dorsey NE (1968) Properties of ordinary water-substance in all its
phases: water vapour, water, and all the ices. Hafner Publishing
Company, New York
Driscoll FG (1986) Groundwater and Wells, 2nd edn. Johnson Div,
St. Paul, MIN 1108 p
Dubreuil-Boisclair C, Gloaguen E, Marcotte D, Giroux B (2011)
Heterogeneous aquifer characterization from ground penetrating
radar tomography and borehole hydrogeophysical data using
nonlinear Bayesian simulations. Geophysics 76(4):J13–J25
Durner W (1994) Hydraulic conductivity estimation for soils with
heterogeneous pore structure. Water Resour Res 30(2):211–223
Dutta N (1987) Fluid flow in low permeable porous media. In:
Doligetz B (ed) Migration of Hydrocarbons in Sedimentary
Basins. Technip, Paris, pp 567–596
Erzin Y, Gumaste SD, Gupta AK, Singh DN (2009) Artificial neural
network (ANN) models for determining hydraulic conductivity
of compacted fine-grained soils. Can Geotech J 46:955–968
Esselburn JD, Ritzi RW Jr, Dominic DF (2011) Porosity and
permeability in ternary sediment mixtures. Ground Water
49(3):393–402
Farrar DM, Coleman JD (1967) The correlation of surface area with
other properties of 19 British clay soils. J of Soil Science
18(1):118–124
Ferrandon J (1948) Les lois d’écoulement de filtration. Le Génie Civil
125(2):24–28
Fredlund MD, Xing AQ, Huang SY (1994) Predicting the perme-
ability function for unsaturated soils using the soil-water
characteristic curve. Can Geotech J 31(4):533–546
Fredlund MD, Wilson GW, Fredlund DG (2002) Use of grain-size
distribution for the estimation of the soil-water characteristic
curve. Can Geotech J 39(5):1103–1117
Garcia-Bengochea I, Lovell CW (1981) Correlative measurements of
pore size distribution and permeability in soils. In permeability
and ground water contaminant transport. ASTM STP
746:137–150
Garcia-Bengochea I, Lovell CW, Altschaeffl AG (1979) Pore
distribution and permeability of silty clays. J Geotech Eng
105(GT7):839–856
Ghanbarian-Alavijeh B, Liaghat AM, Sohrabi S (2010) Estimating
saturated hydraulic conductivity from soil physical properties
using neural network model. World Acad Sci Eng Technol
62:131–136
Ghassemi A, Pak A (2011a) Pore scale study of permeability and
tortuosity for flow through particulate media using Lattice
Boltzmann method. Int J Num Anal Meth Geomech
35(8):886–901
Ghassemi A, Pak A (2011b) Numerical study of factors influencing
relative permeabilites of two immiscible fluids through porous
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils
media using lattice Boltzann method. J of Petroleum Sci Eng
77(1):135–145
Gloaguen E, Chouteau M, Marcotte D, Chapuis R (2001) Estimation
of hydraulic conductivity of an unconfined aquifer using
cokriging of GPR and hydrostratigraphic data. J Appl Geophys
47:135–152
Göktepe AB, Sezer A (2010) Effect of particle shape on density and
permeability of sand. Proc Instit Civil Eng 163:307–320
Govindaraju RS, Reddi LN, Bhargava SK (1995) Characterization of
preferential flow paths in compacted sand-clay mixtures. J Geo-
tech Eng 121(9):652–659
Green RE, Corey JC (1960) Calculation of hydraulic conductivity: a
further evaluation of some predictive methods. Proc Soil Sci Soc
Am 35:3–8
Gregg SJ, Sing KWS (1967) Adsorption Surface Area and Porosity.
Academic Press, London
Gupta SC, Larson WE (1979) Estimating soil–water retention
characteristics from particle size distribution, organic matter
percent, and bulk density. Water Resour Res 15(6):1633–1635
Guyonnet D, Gourry JC, Bertrand L, Amraoui N (2003) Heteroge-
neity detection in an experimental clay liner. Can Geotech J
40(1):149–160
Hansen D (2004) On the use of the Kozeny–Carman equation to
predict the hydraulic conductivity of soils: Discussion. Can
Geotech J 41:990–993
Harleman DRF (1963) Dispersion-permeability correlation in porous
media. ASCE J Hydraulics Div 89(2):67–85
Hassler GL, Rice RR, Leeman EM (1936) Investigations on the
recovery of oil from sandstone by gas-drive. Petrol Trans AIME
118:116–137
Hatanaka M, Uchida A, Takehara N (1997) Permeability character-
istics of high-quality undisturbed sands measured in a triaxial
cell. Soils Found 37(3):129–135
Hatanaka M, Uchida A, Taya Y, Takehara N, Hagisawa T, Sakou N,
Ogawa S (2001) Permeability characteristics of high-quality
undisturbed gravely soils measured in laboratory tests. Soils
Found 41(3):45–55
Haug MD, Wong LC (1992) Impact of molding water content on
hydraulic conductivity of compacted soil-bentonite. Can Geo-
tech J 29(2):253–262
Haug MD, Buettner WG, Wong LC (1994) Impact of leakage on
precision in low gradient flexible wall permeability testing. In:
Daniel DE, Trautwein SJ (eds) Hydraulic conductivity and waste
contaminant transport in soils, vol 1142, pp 390–406, ASTM STP
Haverkamp R, Parlange JY (1986) Predicting the water retention
curve from particle-size distribution: I. Sandy soils without
organic matter. Soil Sci 142:325–339
Hazen A (1892) Some physical properties of sand and gravel, with
special reference to their use in filtration. Massachusetts State
Board of Health, 24th annual report, Boston, pp 539–556
Hazen A (1911) Dams on sand formations: discussion. Trans ASCE
73:199–203
Horgan GW (1998) Mathematical morphology for analysing soil
structure from images. Europ J Soil Sci 49(2):161–173
Hossain D (1995) Leakage control of long-duration testing of triaxial
specimens. ASCE J Geotech Eng 121(11):810–813
Houpeurt A (1974) Mécanique des fluides dans les milieux poreux—
Critiques et recherches. Technip, Paris
Hvorslev MJ (1940) The present status of the art of obtaining undisturbed
samples of soils. Harvard Univ, Soil Mech Series No. 14
Hvorslev MJ (1949) Subsurface exploration and sampling of soils for
civil engineering purposes. The Engineering Foundation, New
York, 521 p
Hwang SI, Powers SE (2003) Using particle-size distribution models
to estimate soil hydraulic properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J
67:1103–1112
431
ISSMFE (1981) International manual for the sampling of soft
cohesive soils. Tokai Univ Press, Tokyo
Jabro JD (1992) Estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity of
soils from particle-size distribution and bulk-density data. Trans
ASAE 35:557–560
Jackson RE (2003) An introduction to the effects of heterogeneities
on the characterization and remediation of alluvial aquifers
alluvial geosystems. Environ Eng Geosci 9(1):1–4
Juang CJ, Holtz RD (1986) Fabric, pore size distribution and
permeability of sandy soils. ASCE J Geotech Eng 112:855–868
Juárez-Badillo E (1984) The permeability of natural soft clays. Part II:
permeability characteristics: discussion. Can Geotech J
21:730–731
Kaoser S, Barrington S, Elektorowicz T, Ayadat T (2006) The influence
of hydraulic gradient and rate of erosion on hydraulic conductivity
of sand-bentonite mixtures. Soil Sedim Contamin 15(5):481–496
Kaubisch M, Fischer M (1985) Zur Berechnung des Filtrationskoef-
fizienten in Tagebaukippen. Teil 3: Ermittlung des Filtrations-
koeffizienten für schluffige Feinsande aus Mischbodenkippen
durch Korngrößenanalysen. Neue Bergbautechnik 15:142–143
Kenney TC, Chan HT (1973) Laboratory investigation of permeabil-
ity ratio of New Liskeard varved soil. Can Geotech J
10(3):453–472
Kenney TC, Lau D (1985) Internal stability of granular filters. Can
Geotech J 22:215–225
Kenney TC, Lau D (1986) Internal stability of granular filters: reply.
Can Geotech J 23:420–423
Kenney TC, Lau D, Ofoegbu GI (1984) Permeability of compacted
granular materials. Can Geotech J 21:726–729
Kezdi A (1969) Increase of protective capacity of flood control dikes
(in Hungarian). Dept of Geotechnique, Tech Univ Budapest,
Report No.1
Konrad JM, Pouliot N (1997) Ultimate state of reconstituted and
intact samples of deltaic sand. Can Geotech J 34(5):737–748
Koponen A, Kataja M, Timonen J (1997) Permeability and effective
porosity of porous media. Phys Rev E 56(3):3319–3325
Kovács G (1981) Seepage hydraulics. Elsevier Science Publishers,
Amsterdam
Kozeny J (1927) Ueber kapillare Leitung des Wassers in Boden.
Sitzungsber Akad, Wiss., Wien Math. Naturwiss. Kl. Abt.2a
13:271–306 (in German)
Kozeny J (1953) Hydraulik. Springer, Wien (in German)
Krumbein WC (1941) Measurement and geological significance of
shape and roundness of sedimentary particles. J Sediment Petrol
11(2):64–72
Krumbein WC, Monk GD (1942) Permeability as a function of the
size parameters of unconsolidated sands. Petrol Trans Am Inst
Min Eng 151:153–163
Krumbein WC, Sloss LL (1963) Stratigraphy and Sedimentation, 2nd
edn. WH Freeman and Comp, San Francisco
Kunze RJ, Uehara G, Graham K (1968) Factors important in the
calculation of hydraulic conductivity. Proc Soil Sc Soc Am
32:760–765
La Rochelle P, Sarrailh J, Tavenas F, Roy M, Leroueil S (1981) Cause
of sampling disturbance and design of a new sampler for
sensitive soils. Can Geotech J 18(1):52–66
Lambe TW (1958) The structure of compacted clay. ASCE J Soil
Mech Found Div 84(SM2): 1654–1 to 34
Lambe TW, Whitman (1969) Soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons,
New York
Lapierre C, Leroeuil S, Locat S (1990) Mercury intrusion and
permeability of Louiseville clay. Can Geotech J 27:761–773
Larsson R (1981) Drained behaviour of Swedish clays. Swedish
Geotech Inst Report No.12
L’Écuyer M, Chapuis RP, Aubertin M (1993) Field and laboratory
investigations of hydraulic conductivity of acid producing mine
123
432
tailings. In: Proceedings of ASCE-CSCE Conf on Env Engng,
Montreal, Vol 1, pp 213–220
Lefebvre G, Poulin C (1979) A new method of sampling in sensitive
clay. Can Geotech J 16:226–233
Leij FJ, Russell WB, Lesch SM (1997) Closed–form expressions for
water retention and conductivity data. Ground Water
35:848–858
Leong EC, Rahardjo H (1997) Permeability functions for unsaturated
soils. J Geotech Geoenv Eng 125(12):1118–1126
Lerche I (1991) Inversion of dynamical indicators in quantitative
basin analysis models I. Theoretical considerations. Math Geol
23(6):817–832
Leroueil S, Bouclin G, Tavenas F, Bergeron L, La Rochelle P (1990)
Permeability anisotropy of natural clays as a function of strain.
Can Geotech J 27(5):568–579
Li X, Zhang LM (2009) Characterization of dual-structure pore-size
distribution of soil. Can Geotech J 46:129–141
Locat J, Lefebvre G, Ballivy G (1984) Mineralogy, chemistry, and
physical properties interrelationships of some sensitive clays
from Eastern Canada. Can Geotech J 21:530–540
Loudon AG (1952) The computation of permeability from simple soil
tests. Géotechnique 3(3):165–183
Lowe J, Johnson TC (1960) Use of back-pressure to increase degree
of saturation of triaxial test specimens. In: Proceedings of ASCE
Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, Boulder, CO,
pp 819–836
Lowell S, Shields JE (1991) Powder surface area and porosity.
Chapman & Hall, London
Lubochkov EA (1965) Graphical and analytical methods for the
determination of internal stability of filters consisting of non
cohesive soil. Izvestia, vniig 78:255–280 [In Russian]
Lubochkov EA (1969) The calculation of suffossion properties of
non-cohesive soils when using the non-suffossion analog. In:
Proceedings of Int Conf Hyd Res, Pub Tech Univ Brno, Svazek
B-5, Brno, Czechoslovakia, pp 135–148 [In Russian]
Luczak-Wilamowska B (2004) Basic soil properties of a number of
artificial clay-sand mixtures determined as a function of sand
content. Lect Notes Earth Sci 104:308–315
Malinowska E, Szymanski A, Sas W (2011) Estimation of flow
characteristics in peat. Geotech Testing J 33(4). doi:
10.1520/GTJ102783
Marshall TJ (1958) A relation between permeability and size
distribution of pores. J Soil Science 9(1):1–8
Marshall TJ (1962) Permeability equations and their models. In:
Proceedings of symp interaction between fluids and particles,
Euro Fed Chem Eng, London, pp 299–303
Masch FD, Denny KJ (1966) Grain size distribution and its effect on
the permeability of unconsolidated sands. Water Resour Res
2(4):665–677
Matyka M, Arzhang K, Zbigniew K (2008) Tortuosity-porosity
relation in porous media flow. Phys Rev E 78(2). doi:
10.1103/PhysRevE.78.026306
Mavis FT, Wilsey EF (1937) A study of the permeability of sand.
Iowa State Univ Eng Bull 7:1–29
Mavko G, Nur A (1997) The effect of a percolation threshold in the
Kozeny-Carman relation. Geophysics 62(5):1480–1482
Mazier G (1974) Méthodes de prélèvement des sols meubles. Annales
de l’ITBTP 319:75–85
Mbonimpa M, Aubertin M, Chapuis RP, Bussière B (2002) Practical
pedotransfer functions for estimating the saturated hydraulic
conductivity. Geotech Geol Eng 20(3):235–259
McKinlay DG, Safiullah AMM (1980) Pore size distribution and
permeability of silty clays. ASCE J Geotech Eng Div
106(GT10):1165–1168
Mesri G, Aljouni M (2007) Engineering properties of fibrous peats.
J Geotech Geoenv Eng 133(7):850–866
123
R. P. Chapuis
Mesri G, Lo K, Feng TW (1994) Settlement of embankments on soft
clays. Vertical and horizontal deformation of foundations and
embankments, ASCE, New York, pp 8–56
Mesri G, Olson RE (1971) Mechanisms controlling the permeability
of clays. Clays Clay Miner 19:151–158
Michaels AS, Lin CS (1954) The permeability of kaolinite. Ind Eng
Chemistry 46(6):1239–1246
Millington RJ, Quirk JP (1959) Permeability of porous media. Nature
183:387–388
Millington RJ, Quirk JP (1961) Permeability of porous solids. Trans
Faraday Soc 57:1200–1207
Minagawa H, Sakamoto Y, Komai T, Narita H, Mizutani K, Ohga K,
Takahara N, Yamaguchi T (2009) Relation between pore-size
distribution and permeability of sediments.In: Proceedings of
19th International Offshore and Polar Eng Conf, Osaka, Japan,
June 21–26, 2009, pp 25–32
Mitchell JK, Hooper DR, Campanella RG (1965) Permeability of
compacted clays. ASCE J Soil Mech Found Div 91(SM4):41–65
Moldrup P, Olesen T, Komatsu T, Schjonning P, Rolston DE (2001)
Tortuosity diffusivity, and permeability in the soil liquid and
gaseous phases. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65(3):613–623
Moraes JAP (1971) General conclusions concerning the hydrogeology
of major valley alluvium in central United States. PhD thesis,
Univ of Missouri, Columbia, CO, p 176
Morin P (1991) Amélioration des mesures des propriétés de
consolidation au laboratoire à l’aide du montage perméamétri-
que. Can Geotech J 28:127–133
Morin RH, LeBlanc DR, Troutman BM (2010) The influence of
topology on hydraulic conductivity in a sand-and-gravel aquifer.
Ground Water 48(2):181–190
Morris PH (2003) Compressibility and permeability correlations for
fine-grained dredged materials. J Waterway Port Coastal Ocean
Eng 129(4):188–191
Morris PH, Lockington DA, Apelt CJ (2000) Correlations for mine
tailings consolidation parameters. Int J Surf Min Rec Environ
14(2):171–182
Mualem Y (1976) A new model for predicting the hydraulic conduc-
tivity of unsaturated porous media. Water Resour Res 12:513–522
Muhunthan B (1991) Liquid limit and surface area of clays.
Géotechnique 41:135–138
Nagaraj TS, Pandian NS, Narasimha Raju PSR (1991) An approach
for prediction of compressibility and permeability behaviour of
sand-bentonite mixes. Ind Geotech J 21(3):271–282
Nagaraj TS, Pandian NS, Narasimha Raju PSR (1993) Stress state
permeability relationships for fine-grained soils. Géotechnique
43(2):333–336
Nagaraj TS, Pandian NS, Narasimha Raju PSR (1994) Stress-state-
permeability relations for overconsolidated clays. Géotechnique
44(2):349–352
Nakano K, Miyazaki T (2005) Predicting the saturated hydraulic
conductivity of compacted subsoils using the non-similar media
concept. Soil Tillage Res 84:145–453
Navfac DM7 (1974) Design Manual—Soil mechanics, foundations,
and earth structures. US Govt Printing Office, Washington, DC
Nelson PH (1994) Permeability-porosity relationships in sedimentary
rocks. Log Anal 35(3):38–62
Nelson PH (2005) Permeability, porosity, and pore-throat size: a
three-dimensional perspective. Petrophysics 46(6):452–455
Neuzil CE (1994) How permeable are clays and shales. Water Resour
Res 30(2):145–150
Nishida Y, Nakagawa S (1969) Water permeability and plastic index
of soils. In: Proceedings of IASH-UNESCO Symposium Tokyo,
Pub 89, pp 573–578
Nogai T, Ihara M (1978) Study on air permeability of fiber assemblies
oriented unidirectionally. J Text Mach Soc Jpn 31(12):T166–
T170
Predicting the saturated conductivity of soils
O’Kelly BC (2006) Compression and consolidation anisotropy of
some soft soils. Geotech Geol Eng 24:1715–1728
Olsen HW (1960) Hydraulic flow through saturated clays. In:
Swineford A, Franks PC (eds) Proceedings of 9th national
conference on clays and clay minerals, Lafayette, Indiana, Oct
5–8, 1960, Pergamon Press, New York, pp 131–161
Olson RE, Daniel DE (1981) Measurement of the hydraulic conduc-
tivity of fine-grained soils. In permeability and groundwater
contaminant transport. ASTM STP 746:18–64
Orr CC, Dallavale JM (1959) Fine particle measurement size, surface
and pore volume. MacMillan, New-York
Othman MA, Benson CH, Chamberlain EJ, Zimmie TF (1994)
Laboratory testing to evaluate changes in hydraulic conductivity
of compacted clays caused by freeze-thaw: state-of-the-art.
ASTM STP1142:227–254
Panda MN, Lake LW (1994) Estimation of single-phase permeability
from the parameters of a particle-size distribution. AAPG Bull
78(7):1028–1039
Pane V, Croce P, Znidarcic D, Ko HY, Olsen HW, Schiffman RL
(1983) Effects of consolidation on permeability measurements
for soft clay. Géotechnique 33:67–71
Pape H, Clauser C, Iffland J (1999) Permeability prediction based on
fractal pore space geometry. Geophysics 64(5):1447–1460
Pape H, Clauser C, Iffland J (2000) Variation of permeability with
porosity in sandstone diagenesis interpreted with a fractal pore
model. Pure Appl Geophys 157(4):603–619
Peng X, Boming Y (2008) Developing a new form of permeability
and Kozeny-Carman constant for homogeneous porous media by
means of fractal geometry. Adv Water Resour 31(1):74–81
Pillsbury AF, Appleman D (1950) Effects of particle size and
temperature on the permeability of sand to water. Soil Sci
70:299–300
Pisani L (2011) Simple expression for the tortuosity of porous media.
Transp Porous Media 88(2):193–203
Poulsen TG, Moldrup P, Jacobsen OH (1998) One-parameter models
for unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci 163:425–435
Powers MC (1953) A new roundness scale for sedimentary particles.
J Sedim Petrol 23(2):117–119
Prakash K, Sridharan A (2002) Determination of liquid limit from
equilibrium sediment volume. Géotechnique 52(9):693–696
Puckett WE, Dane JH, Hajek BF (1985) Physical and mineralogical
data to determine soil hydraulic properties. Soil Science Soc Am
J 49(4):831–836
Rajani BB (1988) A simple model for describing variation in perme-
ability with porosity for unconsolidated sands. In Situ 12:209–226
Randolph BW, Cai J, Heydinger AG, Gupta JD (1996) Laboratory
study of hydraulic conductivity for coarse aggregate bases.
Transp Res Rec 1519:19–27
Rawls WJ, Brakensiek DL, Logsdon SD (1993) Predicting saturated
hydraulic conductivity utilizing fractal principles. Soil Science
Soc Am J 57:1193–1197
Raymond GP (1966) Laboratory consolidation of some normally
consolidated soils. Can Geotech J 3(4):217–234
Rice JR (1992) Fault stress states, pore pressure distributions, and the
weakness of the San Andreas Fault. In: Evans B, Wong TF (eds)
Fault Mechanics and Transport properties of Rocks, Academic
Press, pp 475–503
Richards LA (1931) Capillary conduction of liquids through porous
medium. Physics 1:318–333
Rittenhouse G (1943) A visual method of estimating two dimensional
sphericity. J Sedim Petrol 13:79–81
Ross J, Ozbek M, Pinder GE (2007) Hydraulic conductivity estimation
via fuzzy analysis of grain size data. Math Geol 39:765–780
Sällfors G, Öberg-Högsta AL (2002) Determination of hydraulic
conductivity of sand-bentonite mixtures for engineering pur-
poses. Geotech Geol Eng 20(1):65–80
433
Samarasinghe AM, Huang YHF, Drnevich P (1982) Permeability and
consolidation of normally consolidated soils. ASCE J Geotech
Eng Div 108(6):835–850
Santamarina JC, Klein KA, Wang YH, Prencke E (2002) Specific
surface area: determination and relevance. Can Geotech J
39:233–241
Schaap MG, Fj Leij, van Genuchten MT (1998) Neural network
analysis for hierarchical prediction of soil hydraulic properties.
Soil Science Soc of Amer J 62(4):847–855
Schaap MG, Fj Leij, van Genuchten MT (2001) ROSETTA: a
computer program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with
hierarchical pedotransfer functions. J Hydrol 251(3–4):163–176
Scheidegger AE (1974) The physics of flow through porous media,
3rd edn. Univ Toronto Press, Toronto, Ont
Scholes ON, Clayton SA, Hoadley AFA, Tiu C (2007) Permeability
anisotropy due to consolidation of compressible porous media.
Transp Porous Media 68:365–387
Schulze-Makuch D, Carlson DA, Cherkauer DS, Malik P (1999)
Scale dependency of hydraulic conductivity in heterogeneous
media. Ground Water 37(6):904–919
Seelheim F (1880) Methoden zur Bestimmung der Durchlässigkeit
des Bodens. Z Anal Chem 19:387–402
Sepaskhah AR, Tabarzad A, Fooladmand RH (2010) Physical and
empirical models for estimation of the specific surface area of
soils. Arch Agron Soil Sci 56(3):325–335
Sezer A, Göktepe AB, Altun S (2009) Estimation of the permeability
of granular soils using neuro-fuzzy system. In: AIAI-2009
Workshops Proc, pp 333–342
Shahabi AA, Das BM, Tarquin AJ (1984) Empirical relation for
coefficient of permeability of sand. In: Nat Conf Pub, Inst of
Engineers, Australia, 84(2):54–57
Shahnazari MR, Vahabikashi A (2011) Permeability prediction of
porous media with variable porosity by injection of Stokes flow
over multi-particles. J of Porous Media 14(3):243–250
Shepherd RG (1989) Correlations of permeability and grain size.
Ground Water 27(5):633–638
Sherard JL (1979) Sinkholes in dams of coarse, broadly graded soils.
In: Trans 13th Int Congress on Large Dams, New Delhi, India,
ICOLD, Paris, vol 2, pp 25–35
Shou D, Jintu F, Feng D (2011) Hydraulic permeability of fibrous
porous media. Int J Heat Mass Transf 54(17–18):4009–4018
Siddique A, Safiullah AMM (1995) Permeability characteristics of
reconstituted Dhaka clay. J Civil Eng Div Inst Eng Bangladesh
CE23(1):103–115
Sims JE, Elsworth D, Cherry JA (1996) Stress-dependent flow
through fractured clay till: a laboratory study. Can Geotech J
33:449–457
Singh PN, Wallender WW (2008) Effects of adsorbed water layer in
predicting saturated hydraulic conductivity for clays with Kozeny-
Carman equation. J Geotech Geoenv Eng 134(6):829–836
Singh S, Seed HB, Chan CK (1982) Undisturbed sampling of
saturated sands by freezing. ASCE J of the Geotech Engng Div
108(2):247–264
Sivappulaiah PV, Sridharan A, Stalin VK (2000) Hydraulic conduc-
tivity of bentonite-sand mixtures. Can Geotech J 37(2):712–722
Sivappulaiah PV, Prasad BG, Allam MM (2008) Methylene Blue
surface area method to correlate with specific soil properties.
Geotech Testing J 31(6):503–512
Slichter CS (1898) Theoretical investigation of the motion of ground
waters. US Geological Survey, 19th Annual Report, 2:295–384
Sperry MS, Pierce JJ (1995) A model for estimating the hydraulic
conductivity of granular material based on grain size, and
porosity. Ground Water 33(6):892–898
Sridharan A, Nagaraj HB (2005) Hydraulic conductivity of remolded
fine-grained soils versus index properties. Geotech Geol Eng
23:43–60
123
434
Sridharan A, Rao SM, Murphy NS (1986) Liquid limit of montmo-
rillonite soils. Geotech Testing J 9(3):156–159
Sridharan A, Rao SM, Murphy NS (1988) Liquid limit of kaolinitic
soils. Géotechnique 38(2):191–198
Stepkowska ET, Thorborg B, Wichman B (1995) Stress state-
permeability relationships for dredged sludge and their depen-
dence on microstructure. Géotechnique 45(2):307–316
Summers WK, Weber PA (1984) The relationship of grain-size
distribution and hydraulic conductivity: an alternate approach.
Ground Water 22(4):474–475
Sun Z, Logé RE, Bernacki M (2010) 3D finite element model of semi-
solid permeability in an equiaxed granular structure. Comput
Mater Sci 49:158–170
Tan SA (1989) A simple automatic falling head permeameter. Soils
Found 29(1):161–164
Tanaka H (2000) Sample quality of cohesive soils: lessons from three
sites, Ariake, Bothkennar and Drammen. Soils Found 40(4):
57–74
Tanaka H, Locat J, Shibuya S, Tan TS, Shiwakoti DR (2001)
Characterization of Singapore, Bangkok and Ariake clays. Can
Geotech J 38:378–400
Tanaka H, Shiwakoti DR, Omukai N, Rito F, Locat J, Tanak M
(2003) Pore size distribution of clayey soils measured by
mercury intrusion porosimetry and its relation to hydraulic
conductivity. Soils Found 43(6):63–73
Tavenas F, Jean P, Leblond P, Leroueil S (1983a) The permeability of
natural soft clays. Part I: methods of laboratory measurement.
Can Geotech J 20(4):629–644
Tavenas F, Jean P, Leblond P, Leroueil S (1983b) The permeability of
natural soft clays. Part II: permeability characteristics. Can
Geotech J 20(4):645–660
Tavenas F, Jean P, Leblond P, Leroueil S (1984) The permeability of
natural soft clays. Part II: permeability characteristics: reply. Can
Geotech J 21:731–732
Taylor DW (1948) Fundamentals of soil mechanics. John Wiley &
Sons, New York
Terzaghi K (1922a) Erdbaumechanik auf Bodenphysicalisher Grund-
lagen. Franz Deuticke, Leipzig and Wien
Terzaghi K (1922b) Soil failure at barrages and its prevention (in
German). Die Wasserkraft, Special Forchheimer Issue, p 445
Terzaghi C (1925) Principles of soil mechanics: III. Determination of
permeability of clay. Engineering News Records, 95(21):
832–836
Terzaghi KT (1943) Theoretical Soil Mechanics. Wiley, New York
Tickell FG, Hiatt WN (1938) Effects of the angularity of grain on
porosity and permeability of unconsolidated sands. Bull Am Ass
Petrol Geol 22(9):1272–1274
Tokunaga TK (1988) Laboratory permeability errors from annular
wall flow. Soil Sci Soc Am J 52(1):24–27
Trani LDO, Indraratna B (2010) The use of particle size distribution
by surface area method in predicting the saturated hydraulic
conductivity of graded granular soils. Géotechnique 60(12):
957–962
Uma KO, Egboka BCE, Onuoha KM (1989) New statistical grain-size
method for evaluating the hydraulic conductivity of sandy
aquifers. J Hydrol 108:343–366
Vaid YP, Sivathalayan S (2000) Fundamental factors affecting
liquefaction susceptibility of sand. Can Geotech J 37(3):592–606
Valdes-Pareda FJ, Ochoa-Tapia JA, Alvarez-Amirez JA (2009)
Validity of the permeability Carman-Kozeny equation: a volume
averaging approach. Phys A 388:789–798
van Genuchten MT (1980) A closed-for equation for predicting the
hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J
44:892–898
123
R. P. Chapuis
Vereecken H, Maes J, Feyen J (1990) Estimating unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity from easily measured soil properties.
Soil Sci 149:1–12
Vidal D, Ridgway C, Piant G, Schoelkopf J, Roy R, Bertrand F (2009)
Effect of particle size distribution and packing compression on
fluid permeability as predicted by lattice-Boltzmann simulations.
Comp Chem Eng 33:256–266
Vienken T, Dietrich P (2011) Field evaluation of methods for
determining hydraulic conductivity from grain size data.
J Hydrol 400:58–71
Vogel HJ, Roth K (1988) A new approach for determining effective
soil hydraulic functions. European J of Soil Sci 49(4):546–547
Vuković M, Soro A (1992) Determination of hydraulic conductivity
of porous media from grain-size composition. Water Resources
Publications, Littleton, CO
Wadell H (1933) Sphericity and roundness of rock particles. J Geol
41:310–331
Wadell H (1935) Volume, Shape and Roundness of Quartz Particles.
J Geol 43:250–280. doi:10.1086/624298
Walder J, Nur A (1984) Porosity reduction and crustal pore pressure
development. J Geophys Res 89:11539–11548
Wiebenga WA, Ellis WR, Kevi L (1970) Empirical relations in
properties of unconsolidated quartz sands and silts pertaining to
water flow. Water Res Res 6:1154–1161
Windisch SJ, Soulié M (1970) Technique for study of granular
materials. ASCE J Soil Mech Found Div 96(4):1113–1126
Wosten JHM, van Genuchten MT (1988) Using texture and other soil
properties to predict the unsaturated hydraulic functions. Soil Sci
Soc Am J 52:1762–1770
Wyckoff RD, Botset HG (1936) The flow of gas-liquid mixtures
through unconsolidated sands. Physics 7:325–345
Wyllie MRJ, Gardner GHF (1958a) The generalized Kozeny–Carman
equation: part I. World Oil 146(4):121–126
Wyllie MRJ, Gardner GHF (1958b) The generalized Kozeny–Carman
equation: part II. World Oil 146(5):210–228
Yang Y, Aplin AC (1998) Influence of lithology and compaction on
the pore size distribution and modelled permeability of some
mudstones from the Norwegian margin. Mar Pet Geol
15:163–175
Yang Y, Aplin AC (2007) Permeability and petrophysical properties
of 30 natural mudstones. J Geophys Res 112 B03206 a. doi:
10.1029/2005JB004243round
Yang Y, Aplin AC (2010) A permeability-porosity relationship for
mudstones. Marine Petrol Geol 27:1692–1697
Yazdchi K, Srivastava S, Luding S (2011) Microstructural effects on
the permeability of periodic fibrous porous media. Int J Multiph
Flow. doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2011.05.003
Youd TL (1973) Factors controlling maximum and minimum
densities of sands. In: Selig ET, Ladd RS (eds), ASTM
STP523, pp 98–112
Yu AB, Standish N (1987) Porosity calculation of multi-component
mixtures of particles. Powder Tech 52:1–12
Yukselen-Aksoy Y, Kaya A (2006) Comparison of methods for
determining specific surface area of soils. J Geotech Geoenv Eng
132:931–936
Yukselen-Aksoy Y, Kaya A (2010) Method dependency of relation-
ships between specific surface area and physicochemical prop-
erties. Appl Clay Sci 50(2):182–190
Zeng LL, Hong ZS, Cai YQ, Han J (2011) Change of hydraulic
conductivity during compression of undisturbed and remolded
clay. Appl Clay Sci 51:86–93
Zunker F (1932) Zeitschrift fur Pflanzeneraehrung. Duengung und
Bodenkunde A25:1